﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-06-05</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 5 June 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 26 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 24 June 2024. The report will be printed in today's <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>and the committee's determinations will appear in tomorrow's<inline font-style="italic"> Notice Paper.</inline> Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 4 June 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 4 June 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 24 June 2024, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS TINK: To present a Bill for an Act to require the preparation of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR WEBSTER: To present a Bill for an Act to support rehabilitation of the environment affected by electricity projects, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Requiring Energy Infrastructure Providers to Obtain Rehabilitation Bonds Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 DR SCAMPS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that following the dire State of the Environment Report released in 2021, the Government promised to act decisively to turn the tide in this country from nature destruction to nature repair;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) places on record its concern that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in December 2023, the Government legislated an expansion of the water trigger in the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline> (EPBC Act);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government now refers to that step (one part of the promised broader environment reforms) as 'Stage 1' of its nature positive reforms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) despite this new emphasis on the importance of the expanded water trigger, fossil fuel projects which are caught by the trigger have not been referred to or called in by the Minister for the Environment and Water for assessment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes its concern that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has now introduced 'Stage 2' of its nature positive reforms (being the establishment of Environment Protection Australia (EPA) and Environment Information Australia);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to be effective, the EPA should have an independent board, clear, legislated objectives, and be properly funded from commencement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government has now resiled from its commitment to introduce 'Stage 3' of the nature positive reforms (comprising the substantive, urgent and significant reform of the underlying environment laws) in this term of government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government has no current plan to implement its promise to enhance protections for critical habitat or threatened species in this term of government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government, as part of its 'Stage 2' nature positive reforms, to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) remove two current exemptions in the EPBC Act which are catastrophic to its stated aim of conserving critical habitat and preventing extinctions (being the Regional Forestry Agreement exemption and the continuous use exemption in the EPBC Act); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) integrate consideration of climate change into the EPBC Act, in recognition of the threat posed by climate change to nature and to Matters of National Environmental Significance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Scamps</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR BURNELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review was handed down on 3 June 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the decision means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 2.6 million low paid workers on awards or the minimum wage will receive a pay rise of 3.75 per cent from 1 July 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) fulltime workers on the minimum wage will receive an extra $33.10 per week, or $1,721 per year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that since the election of the Government, the minimum wage has increased by $143.30 per week and by $7,451.60 per year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges the Government has delivered on its commitment for Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn while also delivering cost of living relief without adding to inflation with measures such as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) cheaper medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) energy bill relief;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) cheaper childcare;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) strengthening Medicare; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) increased support payments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes that leaked plans from the Opposition reveal they want Australians to work longer for less by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) making it easier to sack people by removing criteria including 'procedural fairness' and 'harshness' from unfair dismissal protections;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) abolishing the better off overall test;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) forcing workers to sign away their rights as a condition of employment in 'take it or leave it' contracts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) removing award protections for thousands of workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Burnell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR PASIN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 677 lives were lost on Australian roads in the six months to 31 December 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the second half of 2023 was the deadliest six months on Australian roads since 2010;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the data needed to understand Australia's worsening road toll is being collected by state and territory governments but is not consistent and not being shared;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) before the 2022 election, the federal Labor Party committed 'to cooperate with the states and territories to improve the timeliness and quality of road trauma data and look for opportunities to extract better quality road safety data from states and territories in return for funding of road projects'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government has failed to deliver on that promise; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to compel the states and territories to collect and share data relating to the quality of Australian roads, the causes of crashes, and the effectiveness of road safety measures as a condition of the $50 billion in federal road funding allocated over the next five years under the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 15 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Pasin</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS WATSON-BROWN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) too many people in Australia are not able to access essential dental healthcare, and are living with preventable diseases and oral conditions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) additionally, Australia is experiencing a mental health crisis, and the ten psychology sessions available under the Better Access Scheme is not enough; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) dental and mental healthcare is essential and should be accessible free of charge to everyone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Calls on the Government to tax the big corporations and billionaires so that we can make dental and mental healthcare free under Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Watson-Brown</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS CLAYDON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the investments the Government is making in cleaner, cheaper, reliable renewable energy as we undergo the transformation to next zero by 2050, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) supporting investment in 32 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable generation and storage across Australia through the expanded Capacity Investment Scheme;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) delivering Australian homes and businesses cheaper, cleaner energy now and into the future, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package which will help Australia become a renewable energy superpower;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the latest GenCost report prepared by the independent expert bodies, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian Energy Market Operator found that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the cost of power from small modular nuclear reactors would be up to eight times more expensive than finned large-scale wind and solar;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) building just one large-scale nuclear power plant would cost up to $16 billion; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) bringing nuclear online would be too slow to keep the lights on, with GenCost confirming that 'the first full operation would be no sooner than 2040' for small modular nuclear reactors, and years later for large-scale nuclear reactors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) agrees that the Opposition's risky reactor thought bubble is not a viable solution for energy shortages between now and 2040, after 24 coal plants totalling 26.7 GW announced closure dates under the former Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Claydon</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR HAMILTON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the importance of superannuation for all Australians, particularly younger Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia in March 2023, $595,000 is the amount required to retire 'comfortably' in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that young people are becoming increasingly disheartened at the prospect of saving for their future, given the current Government-induced cost of living crisis continues to erode their disposable income;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that plans by the Government to impose higher taxes on superannuation earnings from 1 July 2025 will hinder the growth in retirement savings of younger Australians and is an attack on hard-working Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) comments by the Grattan Institute, that within 30 years, about one in ten workers will begin to retire with super balances that will be subject to the Government's higher taxes on superannuation, which is 200 times more people than the Government is claiming;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further acknowledges that young people will be especially impacted by the Government's plans to impose higher super taxes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) abolish plans to introduce higher taxes on superannuation so that all Australians, particularly young Australians, are incentivised to save for a comfortable retirement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consider enabling young Australians to invest in their super by facilitating them to use their tax advantaged superannuation contributions to buy a first home; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) commit to protecting all Australians, especially young Australians, from a bleak future through better economic management, lower taxes and cutting wasteful and inflationary spending in the current cost of living crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hamilton</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 3 June 2024</inline>) on the motion of Ms Swanson—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Government is delivering a responsible budget that provides cost of living help now, builds a stronger and more resilient economy and invests in a future made in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) budget delivers for all Australians by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) easing cost of living pressures;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) building more homes for Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) investing in a Future Made in Australia, and in the skills and universities needed to make it a reality;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) strengthening Medicare and the care economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) broadening opportunity and advancing equality; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's number one priority is delivering cost of living relief to Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the responsible economic management by the Government has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) delivered back-to-back budget surpluses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) seen 82 per cent of revenue upgrades returned since coming to government over the forward estimates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) saved and reprioritised $77.4 billion of spending since coming to government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) limited real spending growth to an average of 1.4 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) improved the budget position by a forecast $214.7 billion over the six years to 2027-28 compared to the former Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) reduced debt as a share of the economy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) improved Australia's debt position with gross debt $152 billion lower in this financial year than was forecast at the time of the election; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(viii) avoided $80 billion in interest costs over the decade due to the improved budget position compared to what was inherited at the election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS LANDRY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the cattle industry within the Queensland 'Beef Corridor' road network consists of a quarter of Australia's cattle herd and makes an important contribution to the Queensland economy worth $2.7 billion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Beef Corridor, consisting of a 457 kilometre network of roads, serves as a crucial interconnected system for agricultural supply chains spanning from east to west;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) this infrastructure facilitates the seamless movement of premium beef throughout every stage of the production cycle;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) beef produced within the Beef Corridor road network is of world-class quality but is transported on dangerous sub-standard roads; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) in 2022, the former Government committed $400 million to make the crucial improvements to the Beef Corridor roads;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the Government for its reckless decision to delay the full funding amount of $400 million for the Beef Corridor road network upgrades and creating uncertainty around this critical road safety project; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to reinstate the original 2023-24 funding profile of $400 million back to the 2025-26 start date to ensure the much-needed road upgrades can begin so the beef industry can deliver its high-value product to market safely.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 July 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Landry</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES ACCORD: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 3 June 2024</inline>) on the motion of Ms Fernando—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that the Government is putting in place significant reforms in response to the Australian Universities Accord to provide cost of living relief and to make higher education better and fairer for students, including those from low socio-economic status or disadvantaged backgrounds and those from the outer suburbs and from regional Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) welcomes the Government's target of 80 per cent of the workforce having a tertiary qualification by 2050;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further recognises that if the broader accord targets are achieved, $240 billion will be added to the economy over the period to 2050; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the Government for progress on all five priority actions from the Australian Universities Accord interim report and its response to 29 of the Australian Universities Accord recommendations in full or in part, including to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) change the way indexation is calculated, wiping around $3 billion in student debt from more than 3 million Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) introduce a Commonwealth Prac Payment for teaching, nursing and midwifery and social work students undertaking mandatory placements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) fully fund Fee-Free Uni Ready courses to provide more students with an enabling pathway into higher education;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) guarantee funding for student led organisations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) establish an independent National Student Ombudsman.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR CHESTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's local government sector is a vital partner in the delivery of local infrastructure and services across our nation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a financially sustainable local government sector is essential for the social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits it can deliver;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) budget failed to provide the funding required to allow Australia's 537 local councils to meet the needs of their communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Government has failed to keep its promise to deliver 'fair increases' to local government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australian Local Government Association described the budget as 'incredibly disappointing to many councils and communities'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urges the Government to work with councils across Australia to reduce the cost of living pressures on ratepayers and deliver the infrastructure and services our communities need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 3 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chester</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 STRENGTHENING MEDICARE: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 3 June 2024</inline>) on the motion of Dr Freelander—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government is continuing to improve our health system by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) strengthening Medicare by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) growing the number of Medicare Urgent Care Clinics to 87;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) expanding the range of free mental health services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) increasing the number of Medicare eligible magnetic resonance imaging machines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) delivering funding for Medicare rebates for nuclear medicine imaging and common medical tests; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) boosting the supply of healthcare in areas of shortage; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) easing cost of living pressures with cheaper medicines, and through:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) reducing patient costs and improving access to medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) listing new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) making Australia a destination for clinical trials; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) investing in ground-breaking new health and medical research; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that only a Labor-led Government can be trusted to invest in and strengthen Medicare; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the damage done to Australia's health system by the Leader of the Opposition who, as the Minister for Health:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) tried to tax visits to general practitioners;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) tried to tax visits to emergency departments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) cut $50 billion from Australian hospitals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR L O'BRIEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the reduction in the provision of maternity services in rural Australia:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) has increased significantly since the 1990s due to closure of rural maternity services and centralisation of services to metropolitan areas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) greatly increases the chances of a woman having her baby outside of appropriate maternity services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) increases the risk of complications for both mother and baby; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) places increased financial and time costs on the woman and family; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) remove the structural barriers and address any outstanding funding recommendations to primary maternity care as outlined in the Medicare Benefits Schedule's report of Participating Midwives Reference Group, and the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into the universal access to reproductive healthcare, both of which included recommendations for supporting rural maternity services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ensure funding agreements with the states and territories enforce the provision of adequate rural maternity services through the Rural Birthing Index, and provide direction for the types of state-based maternity services that should be operating in rural communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 3 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr L O'Brien</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 June 2024</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I want to let people know arrangements for today. Some members will have noticed that I put a debate management motion on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. At the moment, the speaking list is brief enough that that won't be required, but, if the speaking list blows out in the course of the day, that motion will be moved. The effect of it would be that we'd have speeches going through to 10 o'clock tonight, with the vote on the second reading and consideration in detail happening tomorrow. We'll only move that if the speaking list blows out. At the moment it doesn't look like we'll need to. I know that at least one of the attendants has been wanting to know the implications of this for State of Origin this evening! Members obviously have a right to put themselves forward on the list, but, in the interests of the staff and of everybody, if that list is going to get larger than it is now, could people please advise the whips as soon as possible so that we know whether we have to do a later sitting tonight.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's hope for the best.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7204" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Last year, under the Creative Australia Act 2023, Creative Australia was established as a modernised and expanded entity—a one-stop shop for arts investment, research and sector support at arm's length from the government. Two new parts of Creative Australia—Creative Workplaces and Music Australia—were also established to support Australian artists, arts workers and organisations.</para>
<para>Through its activities to date, Creative Workplaces is fostering positive collaboration between government, industry and the community, and is establishing itself as a central resource for promoting fair, safe and respectful workplaces within the sector. Music Australia has also provided direct support to the music industry through initiatives such as providing funding for 32 contemporary music projects as well as 33 international music projects.</para>
<para>The purpose of this bill is to make the final amendments to Creative Australia which were announced in the government's cultural policy <inline font-style="italic">Revive</inline>. Having established Creative Workplaces and Music Australia, this bill establishes First Nations Arts and Writing Australia within Creative Australia.</para>
<para>Creative Workplaces and Music Australia started in August last year. First Nations Arts will start as soon as possible after 1 July this year following the passage of this legislation. Writing Australia will start on 1 July next year. The phased approach to implementation has allowed for a period of thorough, genuine consultation with both sectors.</para>
<para>First Nations Arts</para>
<para>Extensive consultations were led by Creative Australia and were held with First Nations communities in 2023 and the beginning of 2024 and self-determined decision-making was seen as a priority.</para>
<para>First Nations Arts will be established as a new part of Creative Australia, with specified responsibilities including supporting and promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice.</para>
<para>This bill will also establish the First Nations Board which, exercising a number of functions, will oversee the work of First Nations Arts. The board will consist of two co-chairs and eight other appointed members with relevant skills and experience. All board members will be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples and the board will have autonomy over the allocation of funds for investment in First Nations arts.</para>
<para>While the Australia Council Board will have oversight of, and may give direction to, the First Nations Arts Board, it cannot give directions to the board in relation to the making of a decision, in a particular case, relating to the provision of financial assistance.</para>
<para>The Australian government is committed to recognising and respecting the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture. Consistent with this, it is intended that the legislation will enhance opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists, arts workers and organisations with funding decisions determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will include funding for arts projects, developed and delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists, performers and companies within the prism of best practice cultural protocols and principles.</para>
<para>As part of this commitment, First Nations Arts will look towards a future with more sustainable career pathways for the arts to thrive, it will develop a First nations Creative Workforce Development Strategy, not only to enter the arts and cultural sector but to thrive in a sustainable career with enhanced professional and personal development opportunities.</para>
<para>None of this diminishes the general responsibility of Creative Australia to be supporting the telling of all Australian stories, including First Nations stories.</para>
<para>Writing Australia</para>
<para>The government also recognises the importance of telling Australian stories through literature, while noting that our national reading rates are currently falling.</para>
<para>Much like the music sector, new technologies are disrupting the landscape for writers, and modern approaches to supporting careers in literature need to be found. Writing Australia, to be established as a new part of Creative Australia through passage of this bill, will support and promote the Australian literature sector.</para>
<para>The Writing Australia Council, chaired by the Chief Executive Officer of Creative Australia, will have eight appointed members with appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience to oversee the important work of Writing Australia.</para>
<para>It is the government's intention that Writing Australia will become a hub for the sector, to build expertise and partnerships, to support writers and publishers. The Writing Australia Council will support this work and provide informed advice to the Australia Council Board about the responsibilities of Writing Australia.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>This bill continues the work begun by the Creative Australia Act 2023, which established Creative Workplaces and Music Australia, by establishing a further two new bodies: First Nations Arts and Writing Australia.</para>
<para>This is in line with the government's priorities, which are set out in Revive.</para>
<para>In addition, the bill also amends the Creative Australia Act 2023 by allowing the Chief Executive Officer to delegate the roles of chair of the Music Australia Council and the Writing Australia Council to a senior officer of Creative Australia or an Australia Council Board member.</para>
<para>This bill marks the completion of legislative changes to Creative Australia to enable the delivery of commitments under Revive. It is consistent with the government's strong commitment to our First Nations art and arts workers and to ensuring our literature sector is world class and sustainable.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7205" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 strengthens existing Commonwealth criminal offences and creates new offences to respond to the online harm caused by deepfakes and other artificially generated sexual material.</para>
<para>Digitally created and altered sexually explicit material that is shared without consent is a damaging and deeply distressing form of abuse. This insidious behaviour is degrading, humiliating and dehumanising for victims. Such acts are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls and perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and gender based violence.</para>
<para>This bill will deliver on a commitment made by the Albanese government following the National Cabinet held in May to address gender based violence. This commitment recognised the urgent and collective need to respond to the growing challenges associated with artificially generated sexual material.</para>
<para>The bill creates a new offence that applies where:</para>
<list>a person transmits sexual material depicting an adult person, using a carriage service, and</list>
<list>the person knows the person depicted does not consent to the transmission of the material, or is reckless to whether the other person consents.</list>
<para>The new offence will carry a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment.</para>
<para>It will apply to sexual material depicting adults, with child abuse material continuing to be dealt comprehensively in a separate division of the Criminal Code which includes detailed offences and heavy penalties.</para>
<para>The bill repeals previous offences in the Criminal Code dealing with non-consensual sharing of private sexual material. The new offences are based on a 'consent' model to better cover both artificial and real sexual material.</para>
<para>The bill also introduces two new aggravated offences.</para>
<para>The first aggravated offence applies where the person transmitting the material is also responsible for creating or altering the material.</para>
<para>The second aggravated offence applies where a person has already been found liable for similar conduct at the civil standard under the Online Safety Act 2021on three occasions.</para>
<para>These aggravated offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of this offending.</para>
<para>The bill includes specific defences to ensure the offences are targeted and proportionate.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>The bill will hold perpetrators to account for causing harm through the non-consensual sharing of deepfakes, and ensure Australia's criminal offences keep pace with new technology.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to keeping Australians safe from technology-facilitated abuse.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7199" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 implements the government's commitment to regulate the buy now, pay later—otherwise known as BNPL—sector as a form of consumer credit.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is acting to ensure that our credit laws are up to date and respond to changes in credit markets.</para>
<para>In 2022, we passed legislation to make payday loans and consumer leases safer and better regulated for people who use them.</para>
<para>Now, the Albanese government is taking action to ensure that BNPL products are appropriately regulated.</para>
<para>BNPL is an Australian innovation that has benefits for businesses and consumers. It can provide Australians with access to cheaper credit and bring new customers to merchants.</para>
<para>It's provided competition and alternatives for consumers.</para>
<para>However, BNPL can cause financial harm for some Australians.</para>
<para>A study conducted by Good Shepherd in late 2022 found that around 73 per cent of financial counsellors said their clients have missed other payments, cut back on essentials, or even gone without them, in order to pay and service BNPL debt.</para>
<para>The risks of BNPL disproportionately impact upon vulnerable Australians, including First Nations Australians and those struggling financially.</para>
<para>Currently, BNPL is not regulated by Australia's consumer credit laws.</para>
<para>This means that BNPL providers are not subject to the affordability checks that apply to things like credit cards and other loans. When consumers do get into trouble, they might not have access to effective dispute resolution and hardship processes.</para>
<para>Most Australians would think of BNPL as form of credit and that it should be regulated accordingly. We are acting to do that.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 will achieve this by amending the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Credit Act) so that it applies to BNPL.</para>
<para>This means that BNPL providers will need to hold an Australian credit licence and will be required to comply with credit legislation, bringing BNPL into line with other kinds of consumer credit.</para>
<para>We know that one size doesn't fit all. BNPL is different to credit cards, which are different to personal loans, which are different to home loans. As BNPL products carry lower risks than other forms of credit, this legislation regulates BNPL in a proportionate way that provides necessary consumer protections while maintaining the essential benefits of BNPL.</para>
<para>A new category of regulated credit called low-cost credit contracts will be introduced, which most BNPL products will come under. These products will be able to opt in to a modified responsible lending framework, which will allow regulatory requirements to scale down based on certain factors, such as the nature of the product and the provider's harm mitigation procedures.</para>
<para>This will not change the underlying obligation not to provide credit unless it's affordable and meets the consumer needs.</para>
<para>The fee cap requirements for a low-cost credit contract will be finalised through the regulations.</para>
<para>BNPL products that do not qualify as a low-cost credit contract will be regulated as a different type of credit currently captured in the credit act—for example, a small-amount credit contract or a continuing credit contract.</para>
<para>Our approach to better regulating BNPL strikes an appropriate balance between preserving the benefits of access to low-cost credit and addressing the risks of consumer harm.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill contains two tax incentives which help increase our housing supply to deliver more homes for renters by encouraging investment in the build-to-rent sector.</para>
<para>We need to build more homes and we need to do it more quickly, in all parts of Australia. That's why the Albanese Labor government has an ambitious national goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. We're working across government, and with states and territories, on our plan to help meet this target.</para>
<para>The government has made $32 billion in new commitments since coming to office, including $6.2 billion in the 2024-25 budget, to address historic underinvestment in the Australian housing system.</para>
<para>Incentivising construction of new build-to-rent developments will increase rental supply at scale at a time when there is acute shortage of new rental stock.</para>
<para>Build-to-rent developments are specifically designed to be rented out rather than sold to individual buyers.</para>
<para>It's a model that has been used successfully overseas to increase housing supply and is designed to supplement and not replace other forms of rental housing or home ownership.</para>
<para>Build to rent is still a nascent industry in Australia and to date has generally been more focused on luxury developments. Our changes are intended to increase rental housing supply more broadly, including in the area of affordable housing.</para>
<para>For eligible new build-to-rent developments, the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments from managed investment trust (MIT) investments will be reduced from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.</para>
<para>The depreciation rate for capital works in eligible build-to-rent developments will also be increased from 2.5 per cent to four per cent per annum. This will cut the depreciation period from 40 years to 25 years for eligible developments.</para>
<para>Build-to-rent developments will need to meet criteria to be eligible for the concessions. Key requirements include a minimum of 50 or more apartments or dwellings and minimum lease terms of three years must be offered for each dwelling.</para>
<para>Build-to-rent developments must be held under single ownership for a minimum of 15 years. At least 10 per cent of dwellings must be tenanted on an affordable basis, delivering more long-term affordable rental supply.</para>
<para>We need to make use of every lever available to improve the supply of housing, which is the only long-term solution to Australia's housing challenge.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to exempt eligible lump sums payments in arrears from the Medicare Levy from 1 July 2024.</para>
<para>This measure forms part of the government's response to the Senate Economics Committee's inquiry into unlawful underpayment of employees' remuneration.</para>
<para>It ensures that taxpayers who receive an eligible lump sum payment, such as to remedy the previous underpayment of salary and wages, do not incur an additional Medicare levy liability.</para>
<para>I'll turn to schedule 4 of the bill, and pay credit to my colleague the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury. This schedule establishes Australia's public country-by-country reporting regime. Assistant Minister Leigh has been working hard on these provisions to implement the government's election commitments. It will require certain large multinational enterprises operating in Australia to publish selected tax information on a country-by-country basis for the jurisdictions in which they operate. This implements a key election commitment of the government and will establish one of the world's most comprehensive public country-by-country reporting regimes.</para>
<para>Why are we doing it? Public country-by-country reporting will provide the community with a better understanding of how much tax multinationals pay relative to their activities. It puts the onus on large multinationals to be upfront about where they pay tax and how much they plan their tax strategies.</para>
<para>These are entities who have annual global income of A$1 billion or more, and with at least $10 million of Australian sourced (aggregated) turnover.</para>
<para>Public country-by-country reporting represents a major step forward for tax transparency and maintains global momentum towards improved tax integrity.</para>
<para>Driving better corporate tax transparency will improve public policy frameworks by enhancing the public debate on taxes paid by multinationals and, in turn, the appropriateness of current tax settings.</para>
<para>The government has ensured this measure is appropriately balanced. For example, exemptions will be available to protect entities from disclosing data that is commercially sensitive or has national security implications. However, to ensure the integrity of the public country-by-country reporting regime, the exemptions will be at the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation. The Australian Taxation Office will provide comprehensive guidance on this exemptions process to assist taxpayers in complying with the new regime.</para>
<para>The schedule applies from 1 July 2024 and entities will publish their first public country-by-country report within 12 months after the end of the first reporting period.</para>
<para>The government will finalise the specified jurisdictions list to be subject to disaggregated country level reporting by legislative instrument, subject to passage of the bill. This list will complement the European Union's directive on public country-by-country reporting.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 to the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list the following entities as deductible gift recipients. The following organisations will be listed and have DGR status:</para>
<list>Australian Democracy Network Ltd; and</list>
<list>Australian Science Media Centre Inc.; and</list>
<list>Centre for Australian Progress Ltd; and</list>
<list>Combatting Antisemitism Fund Ltd; and</list>
<list>Ethnic Business Awards Foundation Ltd; and</list>
<list>International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Australia Inc.; and</list>
<list>Ourschool Ltd; and</list>
<list>Susan McKinnon Charitable Foundation Ltd; and</list>
<list>Tasmanian Leaders Inc.; and</list>
<list>The Hillview Foundation Australia Ltd.</list>
<para>The listing of these entities encourages philanthropic giving and supports the not-for-profit sector as donors may claim income tax deductions for donations to organisations with DGR status.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 to the bill amends the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 (FFR Act) to support Commonwealth payments to the states in accordance with the new National Skills Agreement (the NSA) and any successor agreements.</para>
<para>The NSA took effect from 1 January 2024, replacing the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development with improved co-funding arrangements and reforms agreed with states and territories.</para>
<para>The bill will replace section 12 with section 12A, which will allow the minister to determine funding to be paid to the states that is consistent with their entitlement under the National Skills Agreement. States will be required to use funding in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The bill also provides for NSA payments under section 12A to be treated in an equivalent way to similar payments in the FFR Act.</para>
<para>Finally, schedule 7 to the bill will support small-business growth and investment through a targeted 12-month extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off.</para>
<para>Up to four million small businesses, with aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million, will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 until 30 June 2025.</para>
<para>The $20,000 threshold will apply on a per asset basis, so small businesses can instantly write off multiple assets.</para>
<para>For assets for eligible small businesses which cost $20,000 or more, they can be placed into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.</para>
<para>This measure builds on the Albanese government's record of delivering measures to assist small businesses.</para>
<para>Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7198" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 imposes a tax rate of 1.5 per cent of the build-to-rent misuse amount for an income year. It is a key integrity feature of the build-to-rent scheme and is intended to neutralise tax benefits claimed where a build-to-rent development does not meet the minimum compliance period of 15 years.</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7181" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll continue on from where I left off last night, when I managed to get a couple of minutes in on this very important bill. As I was saying last night, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is very important because it lays the groundwork for changes to make the NDIS better and more secure and to support people with disabilities in a way that gives them even more dignity in their everyday lives.</para>
<para>When you look at the NDIS, it's right up there with the great Labor reforms in our history. It's right up there with Medicare. It's right up there with the Chifley government's national taxation system and the pension system. This was certainly groundbreaking back during the Rudd-Gillard era. I recall very well that, in my own electorate, back in 2007, we had a disability forum. The then member for Maribyrnong, who was the minister for disability services, came along and said to me, 'I'm going to test something out in this room.' And he spoke to a room of approximately 150 people in my electorate who were from the disability sector—people with disabilities, parents who had children with disabilities and a whole range of people. He spoke about an insurance scheme, and I recall very well that it went down very well with everyone in that room. From there, the seed was planted for an NDIS. Of course, it took a few years through the minister, who then was Jenny Macklin. I was very proud to be here on the day the NDIS was passed unanimously through this House.</para>
<para>This bill builds on those important steps. As I said last night, we know that in March earlier this year we introduced legislation to the parliament to enable this important and necessary change to the NDIS. The government, by proposing this bill, is delivering on a commitment to build a strong and sustainable NDIS. We're doing this not just through words but by providing a further $468.7 million to get the NDIS back on track. These measures build on the $213.7 million to fight fraud, for example, and to co-design the NDIS reforms with people with disability announced earlier this year. The budget that was announced a few weeks ago will drive the implementation of key recommendations from the independent review of the NDIS, including reforms to the scheme transparency, participant supports, sustainability and services delivery, to get the NDIS back on track. This Albanese Labor government is committed to involve people with disability in the reforms, to improve outcomes for people with disability and to ensure the scheme is here forever and a day to support future generations of Australians with disabilities.</para>
<para>The NDIS is on the same pedestal, as I said earlier, as our remarkable Medicare. People with disabilities and their families know that they can trust this government to continue to protect the scheme, to make it stronger and to get the NDIS back on track. This government is committed to improving the outcomes for the NDIS participants and ensuring every single dollar goes to those who need it the most. The Albanese government will continue to work closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disability now and into the future. We've already said that we want to make it stronger and we've already begun to take that initiative and the initial, immediate steps in response to the historic review.</para>
<para>The investment will provide the architecture needed to bring together people with disability, government and other experts, to support those implementations and those important reforms. The key investments will include $45.5 million to establish an NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, a clear pathway of $20 million to start consultation and design work to help people with disability navigate the services, and a fresh approach to pricing, which is very important, with $5.3 million to undertake that work to reform the NDIS pricing arrangements to help to ensure that the NDIS participants get the best deal and a fair deal and increase the transparency of how prices are set. These are all important steps. For example, the architecture to implement the reform will strengthen the governance. For co-design in fighting fraud there is $213.8 million of recently announced funding to fight fraud—to fight the things that we saw on the front page of today's <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>, and to co-design and reform this NDIS so that people with disability get the most out of it.</para>
<para>This government is transforming the capability of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to protect people with disabilities from abuse, violence and neglect, and to detect and prevent fraud. Over the next four years, starting from financial year 2024-25, the Australian government will be investing more than $160.7 million through the DART program to ensure the NDIS commission has the critical technology and the systems required to gather the intelligence and collect and analyse data to better protect the NDIS participants. It will reduce the regulatory burden on the NDIS providers and improve cybersecurity.</para>
<para>This investment will ensure the NDIS commission can focus its activities to better protect those people with disabilities from harm and provide for more effective data sharing between the NDIS commission and the NDIA, as well as other government agencies, to help protect those participants by reducing misuse of the system.</para>
<para>The government and the minister are absolutely committed. That's why they've committed $45.5 million to establish the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, and this is a key recommendation of the independent NDIS review. We know that the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee will provide independent and transparent advice to government on what works for participants. The committee will also provide advice on the evidence base for therapeutic support access through the NDIS, improving outcomes and ensuring better value for participants.</para>
<para>We know key findings from the independent NDIS review highlighted the challenges people with disability, their families and their carers face when navigating this labyrinth to find and access vital supports and services within the current disability ecosystem. The Albanese Labor government is also investing $20 million to begin breaking down these barriers through commencing consultation and design of a new navigation service model for the disability community regardless of their eligibility to access the NDIS. The government will continue to work closely with people with disabilities and the broader disability sector to ensure that the proposed navigational model is fit for purpose and able to meet the diverse needs of the disability community both inside and outside of the NDIS.</para>
<para>Over the last 10 years, the NDIS has made an incredible difference to people's lives. It's made a very significant contribution to Australians living with a disability and their families and those who care for them. This includes many constituents who have approached my office with issues in this space. I'm sure all of us in this House, on both sides, get queries from constituents that are having issues with the NDIS or in the disability sector. One of those constituents of mine that we have assisted recently is Jane, whose occasional therapist contacted me to raise concerns for Jane's wellbeing should she not receive NDIS support. At the time, Jane was in the Royal Adelaide public hospital and was not able to be released. They would not release her until she had some ongoing care at home. Jane is chair bound and suffers from severe lymphoedema, severe arthritis and complex PTSD. At the time, I was advised that Jane had previously applied for the NDIS but was refused for various reasons. I then took it upon myself to make representations on behalf of Jane and to assist Jane out of deep concern for her wellbeing, as her carer was telling us about. The thing is that she couldn't go home without the care, so therefore she was stuck in a bed in a public hospital. It's also worth noting that a situation like this contributes to the congestion in our hospitals. People are in hospital beds because they can't access the support to go home. But I was pleased that, after approaching Minister Shorten's office, he took a keen interest in Jane's case and asked for it to be reviewed. The review resulted in Jane receiving NDIS support and returning home with the support she needed. Her quality of life has improved immensely since then. This is by no means an isolated case. In my office we regularly assist constituents to access NDIS support for themselves and for their family members.</para>
<para>This is why this Albanese Labor government is investing $5.3 million in 2024 and 2025 to undertake the preliminary work on possible NDIS pricing function reforms to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment, which will then in turn offer those people with disabilities a better service. This government will continue to work very closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disabilities now and into the future.</para>
<para>The NDIS Implementation Advisory Committee will oversee and advise on all of the initial period of implementation and will have representatives from the wide disability sector and government and other experts with relevant experience. The committee will report to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council every six months. I was proud, 10 years ago, when the bill was passed in this place to form the NDIS. I'm still proud of the ongoing work. I know that only a Labor government can be trusted to get the NDIS back on track. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The NDIS is one of the most important supports in Australia and is currently helping almost 660,000 people to live fuller, richer lives as a result. Over 1,000 of these people live in my electorate of Wentworth, and they and their families regularly tell me about the difference the NDIS has made to their lives. One woman I met recently, who has lived with quadriplegia for the last 28 years, spoke to me about being able to move out of care and into independent living, manage chronic pain, return to work, volunteer and participate in her local community and be more active in her son's life as a result of the NDIS support she receives.</para>
<para>The choice and flexibility that the NDIS provides gives people living with a disability true agency over their lives and allows them to address the specific nature of their disability through the ways best suited to them. It is critical that any changes to the NDIS maintain the focus on choice, control and dignity. At the same time, I acknowledge the critical growth rates that have become a feature of the system. We're seeing alarming trends that threaten the financial stability of the scheme to serve future recipients. For example, one in 10 boys between the ages of five and seven are now on the NDIS and annual expenditure is growing at 15 per cent a year—roughly three times faster than aged care.</para>
<para>The head of fraud and integrity of the NDIS has also identified issues with the system such as overcharging from providers. Even worse, reports have now emerged of criminals exploiting participants and having them purchase unnecessary or illicit products or withdraw funds directly. It seems these are not isolated. The NDIA estimates up to five per cent of the scheme could be being spent in error. These types of revelations undermine not only the financial stability of the system but also the integrity of the scheme and the public's faith in the NDIS to deliver on its objectives. This sort of bad faith behaviour puts in jeopardy the incredible support the NDIS provides to those who rely on its so heavily, and it must be stamped out.</para>
<para>This system, the NDIS, has undoubtedly changed millions of lives for the better but it is financially unsustainable without real reform. Something needs to be done, and done quickly, to more effectively manage the costs of the NDIS while continuing to support the community it serves. While it is never easy to undertake significant changes to a system affecting such vulnerable and worthy recipients, growth at the level we are seeing is only going to hasten the system's decline.</para>
<para>I understand that this bill will be the first in a series of changes the Australian government will make in response to the NDIS review presented at the end of last year. This bill will make several substantial amendments to the NDIS Act, including clarifying the access requirements and supports that the NDIS will provide to a participant, creating a new model of determining a reasonable and necessary budget and giving new powers to the NDIA to request information and change or manage a participant's plan.</para>
<para>Understandably, the substantial changes the bill proposes are concerning many in my community who either have a disability or know a friend or family member who relies on the NDIS, and they want to make sure that we get any changes right. There is a lot of concern because a lot can go wrong when much detail is left out of the legislation.</para>
<para>I am concerned that the new definitions of support will potentially infringe upon the fundamental principles of the NDIS—choice and control. While further prescribing the types of goods and services that can be purchased under public schemes sounds reasonable, it may restrict many people from using funds in a way that works best for them and their specific needs. It may also not achieve the stated objective of managing expenses.</para>
<para>As Occupational Therapy Australia note in their submission, there is a risk of inadvertently increasing costs by excluding types of support from the NDIS. For example, it may be cheaper and more dignified for a participant to be able to purchase a robot vacuum cleaner rather than pay for regular cleaning services or additional in-home care. Similarly, it may be cheaper and more effective for a participant with chronic pain to see a yoga instructor once or twice a week rather than see a specialist physiotherapist once a month. The option and ability to use non-prescribed services also provides some amount of downward pressure on the prices for prescribed services. We already know that some service providers overcharge participants on the NDIS, so it is not unreasonable to be concerned that further restricting the services that money can be spent on will result in further inflation of NDIS service prices. Professor Helen Dickinson, of the University of New South Wales, noted before the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the more narrowly we define these supports, the less effective these supports are and the more expensive they become.</para>
<para>This bill also introduces powers to change management plans or revoke status due to noncompliance, but there is a lack of clarity about what might constitute a breach. While I'm not suggesting the current NDIA would seek to use this power maliciously, it creates an opening for a gradual erosion choice and control over time in an effort to better manage costs. Among many possibilities, the implication of this could be that participants lose their ability to hire their own selected staff, some of whom participants have had for many years, and with whom they have developed bespoke and personalised care routines and procedures. While it may be necessary in some instances to take over management, this power should be restricted by the bill to only the most egregious and/or repeated infringements.</para>
<para>I am concerned that the assessment procedures under the bill are not sufficiently detailed and that there are inadequate options for participants to review or challenge a determination of either their needs assessment or their budget—similarly, the powers to request information that could determine whether a person stays on the scheme. As the member for Kooyong pointed out, the rigid timeframes in the current bill are short and could result in eligible participants being excluded from services due to difficulties in seeing the required specialists in time.</para>
<para>A woman came into my office last week and said something that has stuck with me. She said she didn't disagree with the direction of this bill; she understands the system is unsustainable. But she noted that this bill in its current form requires a lot of trust from participants—a lot of trust that the legislative instruments, of which there are many, will be formalised with the correct and proper consultation; a lot of trust that the services participants rely on will not be excluded based on cost alone, either now or in the future; a lot of trust that the assessments conducted to review a person's eligibility will be transparent, contestable and conducted by people with the appropriate skills and expertise; a lot of trust that the states and local communities are ready and willing to step up and provide additional supports no longer covered under the NDIS; and a lot of trust that participants will still be able to choose the people they want to care for them, to support them, to touch their body.</para>
<para>I have discussed my concerns with the minister, and I commend the minister for bringing this difficult and complex issue before the parliament and for being willing to meet and work with me and my colleagues on the crossbench. I will not be voting against this bill, because I strongly believe reform is required to ensure the sustainability of the NDIS for future recipients, but I urge the minister to incorporate considered amendments put forward by people on the crossbench and to acknowledge the trust that my community and I put in his department to get this right.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Upon joining the parliament in 2008, the member for Maribyrnong, now Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, was immediately made the parliamentary secretary for people with a disability. In his first speech he stated, 'The challenge for all of us is to abolish once and for all the second-class status that too often accompanies Australians living with disabilities.' Having said that, he took on that challenge, and he continues to serve in this place and, as minister, grapple in earnest with that challenge every day.</para>
<para>The NDIS has been a marvellous innovation, yet it isn't working as well as it might. Australia has had to wait for the election of the Albanese government to find a minister and a government that is prepared to grapple with the difficult process of much-needed reform: making choice and control essential to the scheme, stamping out fraud and waste, and putting the voices of people with a disability back at the centre. The previous government were not prepared to administer the NDIS fairly or well. They didn't put in the work to make the hard decisions to ensure the longevity of the scheme. I hope they will now support the work this government is doing to make the scheme everything it can be and ensure it continues to change futures for people across Australia.</para>
<para>In order to begin the task, which now sees the first of its legislative responses in this bill, the minister launched the NDIS Review in October 2022, soon after the beginning of this parliament. In October last year the minister received the NDIS Review report from Bruce Bonyhady and Lisa Paul. They stated in their preface: 'Ten years into the great Australian idea that is the NDIS, the moment has come to renew its purpose.'</para>
<para>I'll speak to a few of their 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions, and to the bill, which embodies the report in part. I recommend the report to members and to interested members of the public. It considered almost 4,000 submissions, as you would expect of a scheme that already actively changes people's lives for the better. Recommendation 4 of the report underlines the need to support people to navigate the system. Members will appreciate the importance of this recommendation. Often the people who are most in need of a government service or assistance are also those least able to manage their way through the bureaucratic processes to receive those services. It is accentuated in the case where there is intellectual disability or a mental health issue.</para>
<para>Recommendations 8 and 9 relate to housing and living support. It is a crucial area of consideration and particularly challenging in the current market. Group homes are out of favour, but this shouldn't mean that we can't find a way to create independent living arrangements within a supportive community environment. Recommendation 9 specifically speaks of 'a diverse and innovative range of inclusive housing'. I think that will be key, allowing organisations to provide truly creative ways of meeting needs in community settings and for each to learn from the other as we progress.</para>
<para>A case in point is Building Friendships, an energetic organisation in Kalamunda, in the Perth Hills, that delivers activities and training for intellectually disabled adults. In response to the concerns of the parents of their clients, Building Friendships have, for a number of years now, alongside the enrichment activities they already provide, progressed plans for a community of independent tiny houses with essential shared facilities, on the edge of the Kalamunda township. They are now taking their own expertise and knowledge and partnering with Nesti Housing, a specialist disability housing and community housing provider. Their client focused independent housing development plan promises to bring good design and ecological sensitivity, with independent housing tailored to the particular needs of those people who are choosing to live there, and their families, with much-needed certainty for the future.</para>
<para>Recommendation 14 speaks to improving access for First Nations people. The reviewers acknowledge, on the first page of the report, that First Nations people experience disability at up to twice the rate of non-Indigenous Australians. The reasons for this are a complex of historical socioeconomic factors and the policies of former and current governments, and we must do better. There is no closing the gap without reaching Indigenous people well within the NDIS. The emphasis is on working with community to achieve this.</para>
<para>This bill, based on the recommendations of the review, seeks also to take the first steps to restore trust in the scheme. Fraud, overcharging and the underpayment of NDIS workers by a small proportion of providers undermine the system for all. The fraud issues surrounding the NDIS are significant and serious. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission stated in June 2022, shortly after we came to government, that organised crime networks are stealing as much as $1.5 billion from the NDIS each year. This government has been working, from the point of election, to address this fraud concern. Just yesterday we saw a report of an occupational therapist being jailed for six years for doing the wrong thing. There are a further 20 prosecutions before the courts and over 200 investigations underway. We are not looking the other way. Most providers are doing the right thing, but a minority need to be weeded out, and some obviously need to be met with the full force of the law. The previous government were clearly not grappling with this issue. In contrast, there has been hardly a week over the last two years where the minister has not made a public statement on these matters.</para>
<para>I also want to stress the importance of proper audit processes. Strong audit processes must exist in order to keep providers, and all those involved in the NDIS, accountable. Providers doing the right thing will not mind this, as they will pass their audit and, I am sure, will want to know that any organisations or individuals not doing the right thing are brought to account. I and, I know, other members receive reports from constituents from time to time that cast doubt on the actions of some of those few providers in the NDIS space where fees are being paid and services are not being delivered. This needs to come to light quickly and be dealt with strictly, for the health of the scheme and in the interests of those services for the people that are expecting to receive them. The amending bill tightens audit processes.</para>
<para>For the NDIS to be successful, it also needs to be financially sustainable. When the NDIS was first conceived, the Commonwealth and the states were fifty-fifty partners. State funding has reduced as a proportion of funding over time, with the Commonwealth now taking on about 70 per cent of the funding. The states, who are active in disability support in many other ways, have nevertheless agreed to provide more funding for the disability services going forward.</para>
<para>The review and this legislation seek to take the NDIS back to its initial aim, which is to provide support for the most seriously disabled people. There are about 600,000 people in this group, while more than four million Australians have some sort of disability. The bill redefines the pathway and creates a new framework that all NDIS participants will gradually be migrated to. The agreement with the states is directed towards ensuring that, when someone has a disability that will not meet the NDIS pathway, they will nevertheless find the services to support their needs. And while the purpose of the bill is to help streamline the NDIS, it does not involve cutting people from the supports they are assessed as needing. The scheme is still projected to grow by eight per cent per year in the forward estimates.</para>
<para>The scheme will be further developed in concert with the people whom it seeks to serve. Recommendation 5 is that the government must provide better support for people with disability to make decisions about their lives. The bill also allows for budgets to be spent with flexibility within the nominated range of approved supports. As the minister stated in his second reading speech on the bill, a critical element of design and development following passage of the bill will be a person-centred model for needs assessment. We will focus our attention on a person's functional impairments and capacities, not on their diagnosis. This recalibration is supported across the sector.</para>
<para>The bill clarifies the pathway into the NDIS; creates a reasonable and necessary budget framework, needs-assessment processes, flexible funding, and funding for status supports under a new framework plan; provides clarity on the supports that the NDIS will and won't support; and adds safeguards around the management of plans and spending. I understand the opposition is generally supportive of the bill, although it's a bit difficult to ascertain, given their negativity in some of this debate. All I will say is: well, for years and years it could have been the coalition's root-and-branch review, but it wasn't. And for years and years it could have been the coalition's largely uncontroversial bill, but it wasn't.</para>
<para>The NDIS is a world-leading legacy program that, as the minister says, represents the best that Australia can be. The review and this legislation will allow us to make it a better and lasting legacy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in relation to the so-called National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill. At the outset, for completeness and for transparency purposes, I declare that I have a conflict of interest in this space because my youngest daughter, Sarah, is a participant in the scheme. She's one of the 600,000 people on this scheme whose lives have been significantly changed for the better. I thank Julia Gillard, the former Prime Minister, because this scheme was a great scheme. The intent was terrific and it has changed the lives of my daughter and my family, and a lot of my daughter's friends and their families, as well.</para>
<para>There are now some 600,000 Australians who are benefitting from being on the NDIS, but it is irrefutable that the NDIS is falling off the rails.</para>
<para>There is a really good article by Sarah Ison in <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he Australian</inline> today which picks up on a lot of the issues which were identified in estimates last night and over the last couple of days in relation to fraud, and there'll be a lot of discussion around the issues of fraud in relation to the NDIS. A lot of providers will be looking in the mirror this morning and thinking, 'I'm not one of them. I'm not one of the bad guys.' Let's face it, it's always a very small number of bad apples that ruin it for everybody. Most people who are participants in the NDIS are worthy of the support. Most providers providing the support are honest, hardworking people who aren't out there to rip off participants or Australian taxpayers. But, unfortunately, there are those who are seeking to rip off taxpayers. But they're not only ripping off taxpayers; they're ripping off the participants whom this scheme was set up to support, because every dollar that gets fraudulently spent on the NDIS is a dollar that's not spent somewhere else. So all Australian taxpayers and all Australian citizens—everybody in this country—are bearing the brunt of the illegal conduct that has been brought up in Senate estimates.</para>
<para>The fraud and integrity head of the NDIA came to Senate estimates last night and said that up to $2 billion, $2,000 million—let me say that again: $2,000 million—is being inappropriately spent on things like holidays, cars and even illicit drugs. We heard evidence last night of a provider taking a participant to an ATM to get money out so that the participant could be supplied drugs. There are criminal syndicates, criminal crime gangs, which have infiltrated the NDIS. Wherever there is a pot of Commonwealth money, it would seem, it brings out the worst in some of us. This has to stop. We've heard countless stories of NDIS money being spent on prostitutes.</para>
<para>We want a sustainable NDIS system, and I've no doubt that this is a bipartisan view. Do you know what the great thing is about living in Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough? The great thing about living in Australia, unlike many other countries, even the United States, is that it doesn't matter where you live, it doesn't matter what your postcode is, it doesn't matter how much money you earn, if you get sick, if you fall over and break an ankle, if you get hit by a bus—whatever it might be—you know that you're going to be taken to a hospital and you're going to receive world's best medical treatment. Not many countries can say that, and it won't cost you any more than what you pay as your Medicare levy. It's universal health care. That's a great thing. In other countries, if you break an ankle, you get cancer or you have a serious illness or injury, whatever it might be, and you can't work, fate has resigned you, and chances are your family, to a life of poverty. That's not the case here in Australia, and we should be incredibly proud of that as a nation.</para>
<para>On this side of the fence, we talk about building people up, we talk about aspiration and we talk about reward for effort. But one of the principal tenants of the Liberal Party is that we care for those who are in genuine need. If you are in genuine need, we believe that you should be looked after appropriately. We don't just cast you asunder. The NDIS is sort of an extension of that. It's for many people who either were born with a serious, significant disability or may acquire that disability through many ways. We, as Australians, will look after you. And that's something that we should take pride in. But I'll tell you what we won't take pride in, and that's being taken for a ride.</para>
<para>Australians will not cop being taken for a ride. When they hear stories of the fraud and integrity manager of the NDIA saying that up to $2 billion is being spent where it shouldn't be, Australians are rightfully waking up this morning and asking serious questions. In his evidence last night, talking about fraudulent practices, the head of fraud and integrity said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There's case after case after case … 90 per cent of our plan managers that manage between nought and a hundred plans, that's out of 1000 plan managers, have significant indicators of fraud … We've done the analysis on their claiming behaviours … the bar needs to be lifted.</para></quote>
<para>We have got serious systemic problems with the NDIA.</para>
<para>Recently, we have had an explosion of the number of complaints that have been made to my office. I just shot my constituency manager a message this morning, and she tells me that, from this time last year to today, the number of complaints that my office has received has gone up. I'm just one of 151 electorates in this country, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one here. What do you reckon it's gone up by? 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 30 per cent? 100 per cent? 200 per cent? 500 per cent? It's gone up by 1,000 per cent. There has been a 1,000 per cent increase in the last 12 months in the number of complaints from people who are complaining about access to the NDIS or their plans.</para>
<para>So we've got two problems here. On the one hand, we've got fraud being perpetrated by some providers and being perpetrated by crime gangs. Then, on the other hand, we've got people who are already on the NDIS who are waiting a significant amount of time for their plan to be rolled over. Naturally enough, and I would encourage anybody who might be listening to this and anybody who's in this boat, to contact your federal MP—sorry colleagues—and let them know, because not only is it good for us to know what's going on, but we have the ability to speak to the minister and departmental liaison officers. Also, members of parliament should be able to help you.</para>
<para>I really don't doubt—I'm not trying to make this into a political thing—those on the opposite side and I don't doubt the minister's desire to want to make the NDIS work. But we have got very, very serious and significant problems. Going to the bill, I really doubt that this bill is going to solve them.</para>
<para>I was speaking with Marayke Jonkers, who's President of Persons with Disability of Australia. Marayke lives on the Sunshine Coast, is a former Commonwealth gold medallist—I hope I've got that right, Marayke—and is a role model to my daughter, Sarah. Marayke is a champion for people who live with disabilities. I've had discussions with Marayke about this bill and she is as concerned as I am that this bill is not going to achieve the sort of support that people who are on the NDIS need.</para>
<para>Why does she say that? One of Marayke's main concerns is that under this bill someone's package will be lumped into one bucket—if I can put it that way. They'll get a bucket of money. They won't get a line item by line item or certain budgets for certain categories. She's very concerned, and I agree with these concerns, that the access to rights of review under this bill are shrouded in secrecy. Will people have the ability to appeal to the AAT if they get knocked back by the NDIA? Will people be able to appeal certain sums of money in certain categories? There will be very few categories now, so people don't know how much they're getting for certain categories anymore. That's a real problem. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill is a major reform of a landmark piece of social justice. I'm very pleased to be able to speak to it today because this is one of the most important schemes in Australia that any government has brought into being over the last half century. Because it's such a major piece of reform, I think context is important and I want to put on the record, before I get to a couple of the specific aspects of this bill, two important pieces of context.</para>
<para>The first relates to what existed before the NDIS. To clarify that, I go back to the Productivity Commission report in 2011 that was so instrumental in providing momentum behind the reform push that led to the NDIS being legislated and funded, but was also instrumental to its design. If we go back to that very, very important report, it said, 'The current disability support system'—that is the one that was in place before the NDIS:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient and gives people with disability little choice and no certainty.</para></quote>
<para>That was what was in existence before the NDIS, which I think is critical because we do need to make sure that the NDIS improves from where it is. We need to make sure the NDIS is more fit for purpose for people with disability, we need to make that it is more sustainable and we need to make sure that there is less fraud. Let's be very clear, and this is what I hear from people in my electorate all the time, that what we have now is far better than what existed before the NDIS and that it is absolutely critical that we strengthen the NDIS and make sure that it is permanently in place. That's because we cannot go back to where we were. We cannot go back to a system that was underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient.</para>
<para>The second piece of context I want to talk about is that the NDIS is now a critical part of our broader welfare state. I just want to frame that in terms of a question: what is it that the modern welfare state comprises? I would argue that social insurance and lifetime risk management underpin the modern welfare state. Risk management has been with us just about since human beings started living together. If we go back to the most ancient of societies, subsistence societies, people developed very sophisticated methods of food-sharing so that they could avoid starvation. But of course there have been many, many other forms of very sophisticated risk management and social insurance that people developed all through human civilisation. We know the guilds from the Middle Ages but, way before that, in ancient Chinese society, Greek society, Roman society and Sumerian society, there were all sorts of occupational arrangements where people provided each other with income support and funerial support. Survivors of a wage earner who might have died would have been provided with supports from people in those arrangements. There have been sophisticated risk management safety nets for millennia.</para>
<para>But what changed in the late 19th century, in the 1890s, is that the state stepped in. The most famous example of that was Bismark's Germany in the 1890s, where the state stepped in to provide support—workers' compensation for employment, for disability and for many kinds of risks. All of the key social support legislation in the 1890s that Bismark championed had 'insurance' in the title. Insurance has been absolutely pivotal, I would argue, to so many state interventions over the last century and a half. Bismark's Germany is a powerful example. FDR, after the Great Depression, brought in many critical social supports, including an occupational and disability insurance scheme from the 1930s. That still exists today as the best single protection for people as a major safety net. Again, insurance was at the heart of it. In the UK in the post-World War II period, following the Beveridge report, social insurance was at the heart of the post-World War II welfare state. In Australia, again, we have a storied history with Labor governments in particular, but not just Labor governments. We have the age pension, unemployment insurance and universal health care. All of these mechanisms, I would argue, have insurance either as a key element or as the defining element of them.</para>
<para>I would argue that the NDIS is the next step in this great journey of social protection, and I think it's important to put it in that context. The NDIS, at its heart, is a social insurance scheme and it fills a major gap. Before the NDIS we had a number of major social insurance schemes: we had an age pension scheme that was world-leading, we had universal health care and we had other social insurance mechanisms in Australia. But the NDIS was sorely needed and it filled a major gap, as the PC report highlighted.</para>
<para>I just want to ask: what is it that makes a scheme 'insurance'? In the public realm, we have a number of different kinds of social interventions. We have some schemes that are redistributive by nature and we have some schemes that are universal by nature. I would argue that there are some characteristics of a social intervention safety net that make it insurance. One is that support is provided contingent on some event or some state of affairs. That makes it different to a universal scheme. In some circumstances, a universal approach is appropriate—for example, everybody having access to a vaccination when there's a pandemic. A universal approach is the best one there. In other circumstances, where more targeted assistance is needed, a contingent provision of support is more appropriate. So the first aspect of an insurance arrangement is that it is contingent on somebody having a certain state of affairs or having suffered a certain harm. The second is that in an insurance arrangement there is a promise or a commitment for something to flow from that contingent occurrence. I'll talk about that in a moment. Thirdly, an insurance arrangement is reliant upon one of a certain range of funding arrangements. Those are three core characteristics of a social insurance arrangement that I think are critical, because this bill strengthens the NDIS on all three of those fronts.</para>
<para>First, assistance is contingent upon something happening. Now, this goes to the heart of eligibility, and this bill helps in two ways. Firstly, it clarifies who is eligible to be in the NDIS. To be clear: that is absolutely critical for any insurance scheme. It is critical that it is clear who is in the scheme and who is out of the scheme. This bill helps because it clarifies eligibility for the NDIS. Secondly, this scheme makes sure that those who are not in the scheme don't go without any supports. The additional definition and the additional funding for foundational supports and the additional ways in which this bill and further work being done beyond this bill provides for state, local and federal governments to all work together to make sure that there are additional foundational supports outside the NDIS mean that those people who aren't necessarily in the scheme don't go without, because many people who aren't in the scheme are in need of substantial support. So there's that first question, which is critical to any insurance scheme: Who is in and who is out? What is the contingent state of affairs that leads to support being given? This bill provides significant assistance on that front.</para>
<para>The second question in any insurance scheme is: What is the promise? What is the commitment that is being made to the people who are in the scheme? Now, in the NDIS, I would argue that the core elements of the promise were, first, that there be a package of benefits tailored to the circumstances and the needs of the person. That was one of the key and revolutionary aspects of this scheme. Second and, I think, perhaps even more revolutionary was that there be agency, that the person be in control of what those resources be devoted to. This was absolutely critical and this was something that people with a disability themselves advocated for so passionately. Third was that there be holistic care of the individual. Fourth was that there be uniformity of benefits across jurisdictions to remove some of that inconsistency that the PC had criticised. Finally, there would be assistance to provide people with participation in all of society, including employment. All of those aspects of the promise that was made to people who are in the scheme are absolutely critical.</para>
<para>This bill, again, goes towards providing that promise in a more fulsome way. It retains the packages' integrity, and that's something the minister made absolutely central to his second reading speech. It also ensures that people's autonomy and agency remain central to the scheme. If we're looking at that central core element of this being an insurance scheme, once somebody is identified as being in the scheme, what is the promise? What is the commitment that is being made to them? If somebody takes out an insurance policy on their home, the promise is that the home will be rebuilt if there's a fire or if there's a flood. In the case of the NDIS, the promise is that there be a tailored package that reasonably meets that person's needs and that they be given agency in how those resources are spent.</para>
<para>Finally, there's the third question, which lies at the heart of insurance: the scheme must be sustainable. Now, in some insurance schemes—and we're used to this with private insurance—there's a pooling of resources that comes from premiums. We know that, with home insurance, we all pay a premium, they're pooled and then, if people suffer accidents, whether they be minor or major, as in a natural disaster, the pool is used to provide people with assistance. In some publicly-regulated insurance schemes, the same occurs. Workers compensation, compulsory transport accident—again there's a premium, and that goes into a pool. In other contexts, it's taxpayers' funds that are used instead. So think of universal health care and a range of other social insurance schemes in the public realm where it's not a premium that is linked to the funds but rather consolidated revenue. The NDIS falls into that category. It's consolidated funds rather than premiums paid by the individual. This means that sustainability of the fund in terms of the government's ongoing fiscal parameters is absolutely critical.</para>
<para>Again, this bill goes to this challenge, because this bill materially reduces fraud, which we know has been evolving as a problem over the last decade in the scheme. This bill also puts downward pressure on scheme costs but at the same time is maintaining outcomes through early intervention. We see that, for example, with young children with certain mental health conditions. These are critical for scheme sustainability, which is critical for any scheme where there's not a direct link between premiums and the fund.</para>
<para>Finally, the work that I referred to earlier in relation to foundational supports is also critical because it is absolutely important that people who may fall just outside the scheme also receive the help that they need. What I would argue is that the NDIS is now an absolutely integral part of our broader welfare system but that it is a public social insurance component of our broader safety net and of our broader welfare state and that as a public social insurance scheme those three key elements that I referred to are absolute important to bed down if we're going to ensure that the NDIS is working as best as it can and also that it can be sustainable.</para>
<para>That issue of the contingent eligibility needs to be clarified as much as possible. That is the heart of any insurance scheme. This bill goes a long way towards clarifying that and ensuring that that is sustainable going forward. It's also critical that the commitment, once one is found eligible, is fulfilled. This bill goes to the heart of that also. This bill goes to the heart of the fiscal sustainability of the scheme, which is critical given that it is being funded out of consolidated revenue.</para>
<para>The NDIS, I would argue, is one of the great social reforms of the last half century. Given what occurred before it, given the state of affairs that the PC described in that seminal 2011 report, we can't go back. But what we have to ensure is that the NDIS is fit for purpose, that it is sustainable, that it gives people the right outcomes and that it continues to give them those outcomes with agency, dignity and respect. This bill is a big step forward on that broader goal.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for Fraser and the member for Fisher and their contributions in the last half hour on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill. I think they demonstrate to the Australian public just how much support there is in this place for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and show a recognition that there are some challenges after the scheme has been in place for more than a decade to make sure we get the right footings going forward.</para>
<para>Like the member for Fraser, I think it's important to, at the outset, acknowledge how we got to where we are today and what existed, or didn't exist, before the NDIS came into play. He was right to acknowledge that previously the system of support for people with disabilities in this country was fragmented. It was underfunded. It was almost impossible to navigate. Basically, it was a lottery of post codes whether you received the support you needed. People lived in fear of (1) having a child with a disability who needed help and (2) what would happen to their child or their loved one if they passed away. The care simply wasn't there. They had a fear and risk of being in poverty as a direct result of having a family member or loved one with serious disability.</para>
<para>We got to this point more than 10 years ago now where we implemented a scheme and system which, I think, is revolutionary and is a reform that this parliament should be proud of and will stand the test of history. Australians themselves should be proud of the NDIS. It is a world-leading scheme. As I said at the outset, it has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its history. The debate today is not about whether it should exist; the debate today is about how we make sure it's sustainable for the longer term and how we make sure it continues to keep that promise to Australian families.</para>
<para>I remember conversations with the member for Maribyrnong way back in 2008-09. We were both new members of parliament. He was a parliamentary secretary for disability at the time. He was working very closely with the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, on this scheme, and I took no convincing when the member for Maribyrnong explained to me what he was seeking to achieve—that this was the direction we had to take. It brings dignity to families and to people with disability to live their best possible lives, and it's important that people with disability have been placed at the centre of this scheme.</para>
<para>I think the way the NDIS is meant to work and the way it aims to assist families and their loved ones is a very noble aim and something this parliament should keep working towards achieving. In that vein I thank the support workers who work in this field. It is a tough job; it is a tough field to work in. The care economy is a difficult economy to begin with. The care industry has many challenges but working with people with disability on a daily basis—while they would all argue, when you speak to them, how incredibly rewarding it is—can be unrelenting and challenging. I thank those workers.</para>
<para>But there are problems with the scheme, and we need to acknowledge that. The member for Fisher touched on this himself: in an environment where we need to maintain community confidence and trust that taxpayers' money is being spent well and effectively, it's critically important we get the settings right for the NDIS going forward. There are some serious systemic issues with the NDIS, and, like the member for Fisher, I have seen a disproportionate growth in constituents contacting me with concerns about how their package is working in their own homes. It is the No. 1 issue that comes through my electorate door in terms of volume and complexity of issues. We have people who are plan managers, support coordinators or family carers making representations for individual NDIS recipients, and for my staff these are often very complex matters to deal with and they take a lot of time. But I acknowledge that while we have perhaps been one of the more frequent correspondents to the minister's office we inevitably get a reply. It is more often than not timely. It's not always the answer my constituent wants, but, I've got to say, the minister and his office are working to help us overcome the bottlenecks and the complexities of the scheme and making sure we can get a response to our constituents in the timeliest manner possible.</para>
<para>The biggest challenge for government—and I think the finance minister and the Treasurer would agree—in relation to NDIS is its sustainability going forward. We know that the annual running cost of the NDIS in 2022-23 was $35.8 billion. Compare that to Medicare, which was $30.8 billion—so the NDIS is now costing Australian taxpayers more than Medicare itself. It's a difficult conversation to have because the people we're talking about are often individuals who have the most complex needs, and servicing those needs is always going to be expensive. The challenge for governments is making sure that the growth in demand for NDIS funding is being met on the ground by the right people receiving the services they need, not fraudulent behaviour ripping off the Australian taxpayers. I think there's an understanding across the chamber that the NDIS is on a trajectory which is very difficult for the budget to sustain, so I endorse the minister in his efforts to try and get this back onto a footing where this government, and future governments, can be confident they can meet the financial demands of the system.</para>
<para>I have some concerns about some of the cultural issues which now seem to exist in the wider community and almost a sense of entitlement developing, where people are expecting government to step in at times when perhaps community and self-help could be more actively engaged in fixing some of the problems we face on the ground. Government doesn't have the answer to all problems. Government doesn't have to fund every individual service in the community, and there is capacity in our community to do more in partnership with government, to leverage off the funding available through NDIS to provide more services in a manner which I think would be more cost-effective going forward. I don't put that out there to make any criticism of community members. If the bureaucrats in Canberra could find ways to look at the local solutions which may exist in some communities, we may be able to find some savings through the system.</para>
<para>I do have concerns that some of the care in the NDIS has become so individualised that it is difficult to see how that's sustainable in the longer term. There may be opportunities for more group activities and group programs where we can use Australian taxpayers' money more efficiently and still achieve very positive outcomes for the individual recipient of the care package.</para>
<para>But the member for Fisher was right. He indicated there were two problems: fraud and getting plans approved. There's a third problem, which I'm seeing in my office on a very regular basis. The prices for services are escalating beyond what I would say is reasonable. What I mean by that is that I think there's a fair bit of price gouging going on here. I think there are people in this system, whether they're plan managers or some unscrupulous providers, who have seen a pot of honey and have said, 'Let's see how much we can collect before the government figures out what we've been doing.' There's no sugar-coating this. There have been some people who are not doing the right thing. In doing so, they have undermined the sustainability of this scheme.</para>
<para>After more than a decade of operation, it is only appropriate, timely and perfectly acceptable for this parliament to have these conversations about how to refresh, reinvigorate, redirect and reset the NDIS to make sure that it will be a scheme that exists long into the future, because we have to acknowledge that this scheme has to survive changes of government. This scheme has to survive the passing careers. As much as we all think we're immortal, we're all going to pass through this place in the years ahead, and this scheme is going to outlive us all. We need to make sure this is a scheme that is a legacy of this parliament that future generations will value.</para>
<para>I think the minister's motives and intent in the legislation he's brought before the House are to be commended. I acknowledge that, in his second reading speech, he points to the fact that he has to tackle fraud, waste and overcharging so that every dollar does go towards a better outcome for the participants and not someone who's trying to make a quick buck.</para>
<para>Something that really concerns me in terms of our nation's attitude to schemes like this or to contracting for projects that are run by governments is that there seems to be a belief that has developed in Australia over a long period of time that ripping off the government is a victimless crime. 'If it's a government contract, take as much as you can. Ripping off the government is a victimless crime.' It's not a victimless crime. For every dollar these fraudulent operators take out of these systems, they are taking dollars out of taxpayers' pockets and increasing the cost of living for mums and dads and families across our nation. Whether it's fraudulent behaviour with the NDIS or fattening up contracts for infrastructure projects, ripping off the government is not a victimless crime. At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it, and it's the Australian taxpayers who cop the bill.</para>
<para>So I do acknowledge the minister's second reading speech, where he indicates he is going to tackle fraud. He has now appointed Mr Michael Phelan, a former director of the Australian Institute of Criminology and a decorated former police officer, as the Acting Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. I commend the minister in that regard, and I commend Mr Phelan on his work. It is wrong to be fattening up contracts or overservicing or applying what the minister described as a 'wedding tax' to the NDIS. He's right. People have seen this pot of honey—this unlimited pot of gold or whatever you want to call it—and thought, 'I can charge whatever I want, and I'm going to get away with it.' So I encourage the minister's efforts to reduce the amount of fraud.</para>
<para>I welcome the bill before the House. I think the minister, in his second reading speech, has indicated that he'll work with the states and the opposition to deliver a common vision for the NDIS. I also encourage him, though, to see what he can do to drive localism into the scheme, to look for these local solutions. There are some fantastic operators in our communities—community health providers, sometimes in the charitable sector—who can leverage government money and make it go further, which is the direct opposite of what we find when we go to state governments. They can leverage Commonwealth money and make it go even shorter distances and cream off a bit of money themselves on the way through. The moment the NDIS came along, the state governments said: 'We can step back now. We can cost shift this one. We can get out of here!' You saw them running for the hills. I'd say to the minister: have a good look at what's available locally and regionally. There may be ways we can drive those dollars further just with a little bit of seed funding for some of these charitable non-profit providers or community groups that are trying to do good work in this field.</para>
<para>It's critical we get this right, because trust and integrity and belief in the scheme build community confidence, and the community is the first to know. The community sees the rorts. The community contact me and tells me: 'Do you know what the NDIS providers are up to now?' They can smell a rat. They can see the dodgy stuff going on and they say to us, 'You know, this scheme is out of control. We can't afford it.' The minister's big challenge is to restore that integrity and trust in the system so that the community has confidence in the system and the community feels very comfortable with the fact that their taxes are going to a world-class system. A critical issue for us is building community confidence that we're going to end the rorts and rip-offs in this area.</para>
<para>The other point I'd like to make in regard to the care economy is how the disability sector is now outcompeting other aspects of the care industry. I use the term 'care industry' with some reservations. The care industry or the care sector is the sector where people are involved in child care, in aged care or in supporting our veterans. The disability sector is actually outpricing them, which makes it difficult, then, to attract workers to the other sectors. We need to get some proportionality here to make sure that, in the care industry, as a sector, we are allowing people to focus on the area they want to focus on, if they're predisposed to work in those areas, and we don't have this giant, this behemoth, the NDIS, taking all the workforce away from those other sectors.</para>
<para>Making it sustainable for future generations is a critical element to it, as is building confidence in the community and making sure that the rorts and rip-offs are being exposed and people are being punished if they're up to no good. I will just say in closing that I will continue to approach these issues in good faith in a bipartisan way, and I hope the minister will continue to act in the same way. As I said, the NDIS is going to outlive every member in this place. This system has to work so future generations can get the benefits of it. We need to see the modelling that underpins the NDIS finance sustainability framework, we need to see the cost savings to be made with this legislation, and we need a detailed outline of the inevitable reductions that participants should expect as a result of these changes.</para>
<para>The coalition will reserve its final position on the bill until after the Senate inquiry is complete, but we do acknowledge and commend members of this parliament, and also members of previous parliaments, who have acted in a very bipartisan way on this issue. The NDIS is changing the lives of more than 600,000 Australians, and the coalition has always endeavoured to work constructively on and be a strong supporter of the scheme. We do want to see it fully funded going forward as a demand driven scheme. We've also been clear that it needs to be sustainable in the longer term. I look forward to working as constructively as possible with the minister to help get the NDIS back on track. I do thank him and his staff for their engagement with my office on what have been some very complex cases over the last couple of years, and I commend their work in making sure that the people with disability are placed at the centre of the scheme. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The NDIS has been life changing for so many Australians with disabilities and their families and friends. Every day I hear of people for whom the NDIS has been transformational. It's enabled them to live independently. It's enabled them to pursue higher education. It's enabled them to take on paid employment or start their own microbusiness. It's enabled them to see friends, have a social life, develop hobbies and play sports. Mostly it's enabled them to live meaningful and rewarding lives with dignity and respect. So many people have really positive experiences from the NDIS, but, of course, that isn't the case for everyone.</para>
<para>The NDIS was developed after decades of lobbying from the disability and carer sectors, which were looking for a service scheme that would support independence, respect and dignity. They wanted a scheme where the services you were able to access were appropriate for the individual support needs, not some sort of postcode lottery.</para>
<para>In 2009 the Rudd Labor government, with parliamentary secretary for disabilities Bill Shorten and minister for community services Jenny Macklin, produced a shocking report into the state of disability services across Australia. The report was entitled <inline font-style="italic">Shut Out</inline>. It detailed how people with disability were shut out of education, employment, housing, health care, recreation, sport—life. They were shut out of meaningful participation in the community and Australian society. Whereas previously they'd been shut in, in institutions, now they were shut out, and the experience of being out of sight and out of mind was the same. The frustration and the structural and institutional barriers to taking control of their lives were the same in so many ways, whether inside an institution or inside their own home. Accessing the services they needed was a constant struggle. As a result of this report, the NDIS was established, and it has fundamentally changed the experience of disability in this country and the experience of disability services.</para>
<para>The NDIS now provides services to 660,000 Australians and employs over 400,000 people in NDIS related occupations. For those Australians with disability and their families, loved ones and friends, the NDIS represents an expression of their rights as citizens in this country to the services that will provide them with a fair go for a meaningful, satisfying life and to participate in our community. For all Australians, it's the comfort of knowing that, should they, their family or friends acquire a significant and permanent disability, the safety net is there for them. In its 10-year history, the NDIS has changed hundreds of thousands of lives for the better. However, there have been problems.</para>
<para>Some of those problems have been at the individual level. Some individuals have received packages that have been inadequate for their needs. Some have inexplicably experienced sudden cuts in their packages. Some have had to fight to get the services that seem very straightforwardly required, including having to prove and re-prove permanent disabilities. Many have ended up in the AAT in order to get what seems like very reasonable services, and I have a personal experience of that for a family member. Like many, I found that, once I'd gone to the AAT and they realised I would actually turn up and argue the case, the NDIA was suddenly happy to settle in the favour of my family member, rather than continue to a decision that might set a legal precedent. Every interaction is seemingly a battle with bureaucracy, with hidden rules, magic key words and endless resources to continue the battle against individuals with disabilities. And, of course, on a systemic level the growth and the continued growth of the NDIS in the absence of any other disability service systems has been unsustainable.</para>
<para>The NDIS is currently projected to grow to more than one million participants and cost up to $100 billion a year by 2032. Clearly that is unsustainable. The NDIS was designed to help the people with the most complex support needs, but it was never designed to be the total scheme for all Australians with disability. We now need to finish the job of building a more inclusive Australia.</para>
<para>We also know on a systemic level that, when there is a pot of government money, there will be unscrupulous operators, criminals, who will be attracted to try and take a share of that funding. We've heard horrific stories of people with disability being taken advantage of, manipulated and provided with inadequate or dangerous service levels, and there have been tragedies. We hear about the so-called wedding tax where, just like when you're organising a wedding, the prices for services are suddenly so much more expensive. We found unscrupulous operators would hike up the prices for services when they heard the NDIS was paying.</para>
<para>When this government was elected in May 2022, Minister Bill Shorten, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, knew there were problems with the NDIS as it had been rolled out and was operating under the previous government. At the time, he warned that 'the promise of the NDIS has been betrayed, not yet fatally but still substantially'. He committed to reforming the NDIS so it would, as it had been initially designed to, focus on meeting the appropriate needs of the individual and also be a sustainable, reliable safety net that Australians can rely on. This government is committed to improving the experience for all Australians with disability who interact with the NDIS as well as for their family and their carers.</para>
<para>The work began almost immediately. The NDIS board now has more people with lived experience of a disability on it as well as its first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander board member. We have slashed the 4½ thousand legacy appeal cases that were languishing in long queues at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. People were waiting 18 months and more to have their cases heard. Many, like me, were successful in their appeal, but, when this was for disability services that they needed, that was 18 months and more without those vital services. We're getting more people with disability who are eligible for the NDIS and medically fit for discharge actually discharged from hospital. This not only was frustrating for people with disabilities stuck in hospitals at risk of picking up infections but also contributes to the bed block we see in hospitals across the country. We've established a partnership between the National Disability Insurance Agency and the First Peoples Disability Network to collaborate on the new First Nations NDIS Strategy and Action Plan.</para>
<para>Early intervention is one of the key principles of the NDIS and the world-leading Inklings Program takes us from a wait-and-see approach to an identify-and-act approach for babies and young children who may be neurodivergent. Neurodivergent babies will still be neurodivergent and they will require support but early intervention is crucial for a life with less reliance on supports later on and provides a chance for every child to flourish.</para>
<para>We also promise to make the scheme safer for people with disability and to tackle fraud, waste and overcharging, so that every dollar goes towards a better outcome for the participant, not someone trying to make a quick dirty buck. I know this is a point of frustration for many people who've had an experience of the NDIS and also for every Australian taxpayer. Taxpayers want their money to go to services for Australians in need, not to criminals and not to waste.</para>
<para>Minister Shorten has stated that in reforming the NDIS Scheme Act 2013 we have four goals. Firstly, that the NDIS provide a better experience for participants. Secondly, that the scheme be restored to its original intent to support people with significant and permanent disability. Thirdly, that the scheme be equitable. Fourthly, that the scheme be sustainable. We're coming at this from a number of angles.</para>
<para>In its first year the Fraud Fusion Taskforce that we established has investigated more than a hundred cases involving more than $1 billion of NDIS funding. Mr Michael Phelan—a former director of the Australian Institute of Criminology and a decorated former police officer—is now the acting commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The commission will feature in a new taskforce, alongside the ACCC and the NDIA, to weed out those charging more for equipment and services simply because a person has an NDIS funding package. This is the so-called wedding tax I referred to earlier, but I don't want to trivialise it and we should call it by its rightful name—price gouging—which is an outrageous abuse of the government scheme and taxpayer funding.</para>
<para>We undertook an independent review of the NDIS, which was completed in 2023. Over a 12-month period the review heard from over 10,000 people across Australia and read almost 4,000 submissions. I'd like to thank those in my electorate of Boothby who participated in that review, whether they be people with disability, their family and carers or the disability workers, who I know had lots of valuable information for the review. The NDIS review was designed to put people with a disability back at the centre of the NDIS, restore trust and pride in the scheme and ensure its sustainability for future generations.</para>
<para>The NDIS review resulted in 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions including a range of legislative reforms to return the scheme to its original intent and improve the experience of participants, which brings us to this bill. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill packages a series of amendments that enable the government and the disability community to start improving the scheme. These amendments are needed so that the government and disability community can start improving it. The legislative approach taken is to establish an enabling architecture for rules and future reforms to restore the original intent, integrity, consistency and transparency of the scheme. These rules, together with all legislative instruments provided for in the bill, will be developed with all states and territories following genuine consultation with the disability community.</para>
<para>Collaboration with the disability sector on design is essential. This was a clear message from the NDIS review panel. It will be complimented by the design and development of foundational supports to assist people with a disability, including those outside NDIS. These foundational supports have been agreed with state and territory ministers. The 'getting the NDIS back on track bill' will provide clarity on who can access the NDIS. It will enable better early intervention pathways for people living with psychosocial disability and children younger than nine years old with developmental delay and disability. It will improve how NDIS participant budgets are set, making them more flexible and providing clearer information on how they can be spent.</para>
<para>Many of the changes to the scheme will be implemented through the new NDIS rules, which will be put in place following the initial amendments made by the bill. The NDIS rules will set out the details of how the scheme operates. The new rules will be co-designed with the disability community, continuing to keep the voices and needs of people with disability at the heart of all NDIS reform.</para>
<para>Importantly, this bill also includes amendments to quality and safeguarding, providing greater flexibility for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in exercising compliance powers and building on our comprehensive forward reforms. These changes will boost the commission's ability to undertake compliance action.</para>
<para>I know the concept of change in this area makes people very nervous, and there is certainly some misinformation circulating in the disability community. Minister Shorten has stated that the term 'reasonable and necessary' remains the core basis on which support needs will be met. He is committed to ensuring that the process is a dignified, person-centred approach; that the result should be a consistent, fair and accurate budget; that the assessment will look at your needs as a whole and won't distinguish between primary and secondary disabilities any longer; and that you will be able to spend your budget flexibly, because you know your needs better than anyone else. But you will need to manage your budget, and the NDIA will be clear about what is and is not eligible for funding. However, importantly, until the new planning rules and legislative instruments are made, current planning rules will continue with no change. This bill is the first step.</para>
<para>I'd like to finish by thanking the Minister for the NDIS for the important work being done on this scheme. The NDIS is life-changing. It's life-supporting. Many, many Australians rely on the NDIS on an everyday basis. We need, as a community, to have confidence in the NDIS. We need it to be financially sustainable. We need to know that services are safe and that they are quality. And we need confidence that illegal actors, criminals, price gougers, are shut down. This bill continues to do this, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is an utter betrayal of the disability community and NDIS participants by this Labor government. The bill proposes the most significant changes to the NDIS since it started, more than a decade ago. What does it do? It cuts $14.4 billion from the NDIS. This is in the same federal budget that dishes out nearly $50 billion in fossil fuel subsidies; $175 billion in tax handouts for property investors; and over $80 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, including every politician in this place, who are still going to get $4½ thousand off their tax every single year. But, at the same time as it is doing all that, this budget will cut $14.4 billion out of the NDIS.</para>
<para>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 to live a good life. And Labor had the gall to create it behind closed doors and pressured representatives from the disability community to sign non-disclosure agreements. This alone says all you need to know about what the government thought the community would think of this bill and say in public. This is not a genuine co-design, and Labor knows it. This is a shameful silencing of the voices of those who might speak against the bill. But, as this bill shows, this government doesn't genuinely care about disabled people.</para>
<para>Not only has the government ripped the funding out of the NDIS; it is going to make it harder for anyone to access the scheme. If you're already on a plan, 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 can't 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 is so blatantly clear that this is a thinly veiled attempt to remove support for people or just kick them off the NDIS altogether.</para>
<para>The government are going to restrict what supports are available through the scheme, remove provisions for individualising plans and try to standardise assessments. Disability is not standardised and should never be treated as such. Anyone who has tried to get the NDIS, or work with it, knows how 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've cleared a hurdle, or figured it out, they move the goalposts. People are spending years of their lives crushed and exhausted by trying to navigate the NDIS. This bill will only make that situation worse.</para>
<para>I've heard from people in my electorate that are already feeling the weight of all of this. My office has supported a participant and his support worker for months while he has begged the NDIS to urgently review his funding. Through no fault of his own his funds have dried up. He is now homeless, a direct result of the housing crisis, which heavily impacts disabled people in our communities. We warned the NDIS that things would get worse if they didn't act to review his plan. His funding ran out and he was on the streets. Not long after that he ended up in hospital after nearly taking his own life.</para>
<para>Another is a mother whose daughter's communication device broke months ago. She cannot communicate with the rest of the world without it. Again, for months we have been trying to get approval to get it fixed, but she is still left with a broken device today. That means, apart from her parents, she is literally shut off from the world and can't talk to other people and communicate with them. It has been months. This is unacceptable in a wealthy country like this.</para>
<para>Another is a man named Jack, a disabled man in my electorate who needs round-the-clock care. He was being supported in his home by his mother until her tragic passing recently. When Jack's mother passed away, Jack's life changed and so did his needs. Since January, he has been asking for a review of his plan. Since then, there's been nothing. Again, we warned the NDIS that if his plan was not urgently reviewed he would run out of funds. Now, his support workers have had to stop working and he's had to move from his trusted home into temporary respite to survive, all while he waits for the NDIS to approve the request. To be clear, Jack's mother passed away. He already had to deal with the passing of his mother, who was also his primary support care worker, and now he has to deal with the fact that the NDIS still hasn't updated his plan to reflect the fact that his primary carer, his mother, has died. It's already deeply humiliating and awful to go through that.</para>
<para>How many more situations like that are going to occur if this bill passes and $14.4 billion of funding is ripped from the scheme over the next two years? My inbox at the moment is flooded with support workers and participants who are highly concerned about the proposed changes in this bill. These are people's lives. They are not numbers on a spreadsheet. We have already seen the ramifications of overwhelmed workers and lack of funding, and now we have a Labor government that brings forward a bill like this. To be clear, obviously the government inherited the scheme with serious issues. I think everyone in the disability community would be patient about the idea of going and fixing those and increasing funding and making sure situations like that don't occur. But the Labor government has literally turned around and proposed a bill that will make the situation worse and rip $14.4 billion out of the scheme, again, in the same year that this budget found $175 billion over the next four years in tax handouts for property investors and $84 billion in tax cuts for everyone earning over $200,000 a year, including every politician in this place.</para>
<para>What the Labor government are saying with this bill and with this budget is that they have chosen property investors and big gas corporations, who they are still not taxing properly, over disabled people who rely on the NDIS. It is needlessly and indescribably cruel. Many people on the NDIS already knew at the very least that the government didn't care about them. This rubs salt in that painful wound. With this budget and this bill, Labor have sent a clear message to disabled people that they do not care about their goals, aspirations or agency. That's not good enough. It's not good enough for the Greens and it's not good enough for the people on the NDIS.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The NDIS is another life-changing Australian social reform introduced by Labor, like most of the major social reforms we have seen in this country. It has always been a Labor government that has brought them in. It's a reform that responded to the needs of some of the nation's most disadvantaged families, the families that were doing it the toughest not just because of their income being restricted because of the inability of many family members to work because they had to care for a person with a disability but because the costs of caring for that person were enormous. So when Labor came to office in 2007 it was one of the areas that needed to be addressed, and it was. A new NDIS scheme was introduced in this country. At the time, I can recall the figures stating that there was a projected 450,000 people that were likely to be on the scheme within a few years. The reality is that, today, there are some 650,000 people who are being supported by the NDIS. For most of them, it has given them new life, but it has also given new life to the family members that have to care for them each and every day. Many of those family members have also been able to return to work or to participate in other social activities which they otherwise couldn't do, because a person with a disability often requires 24/7 care just as do people in aged care or people with other health problems.</para>
<para>Support for people with a disability doesn't stop between nine and five, when most government services or even private services are available. It continues around the clock each and every day, and the scheme that was introduced had to factor all that in. That is why it was a huge commitment by this country at the time to establish a national disability insurance scheme. I can recall one of the very first meetings in which the minister, who at the time was the parliamentary secretary—the member for Maribyrnong—came to my electorate. We met with people with a disability and we heard several stories from individuals about the difficulty they faced in their life each and every day in helping a family member with a disability. One of the stories that stuck in my mind and is still very clear to me this day was that of a young girl. She was probably 15 or 16 years old and couldn't go to school, because she had to care for her mother, who had a serious disability. There was the impact it had just on that young person, let alone the life that her mother must have been living. As a result of the scheme, people's lives have genuinely been changed—and changed for the better.</para>
<para>Of course, providing the services that are required is both costly and demanding. What we need is competent service providers and administrative oversight if the scheme is to remain sustainable and the personal needs of the individuals are to be met. Regrettably, implementation of the NDIS in its first decade rested with the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. I can recall the debates in this place because I was here when the NDIS was being debated, and it was very clear to me that the heart of the coalition members at the time was not truly in this scheme. They went along with it because they knew public support would have been a major problem for them if they opposed it, but their heart was never really in the scheme, and that came through with their administration of the scheme when they were elected in 2013. Indeed, they proved to be completely incompetent in administering the scheme. Again, members that have been here a few years will recall the questions to the last coalition government with regard to the scheme and how it was being badly mismanaged.</para>
<para>Indeed, under the last coalition government, NDIS complaints to my office became the leading source of issues that my office was dealing with at one stage. It highlighted how difficult it was for people to navigate the system. They were turning to their members of parliament to try get the help that they needed. I can recall the countless cases that we were dealing with in my office through the period. It continues to be an area of concern, but I have to say it is getting better.</para>
<para>What also became very clear from those people who came to my office at the time was that there was a lot of money being spent—we're talking about substantial amounts of money for each individual case—but much of the money was going to the so-called 'providers' who were either exploiting the scheme or blatantly rorting the scheme. I could talk about some of the stories that were presented to me, but I don't think that's necessary; I think the minister has done that himself on many occasions when responding to questions here in parliament and the like.</para>
<para>The reality is that the scheme was being rorted. I asked myself at the time, when people would come into my office, how the coalition government of the day and the departmental managers who were overseeing the scheme could not see what was going on. To me, it was just mindboggling that they couldn't see what was going on like we could see it when people came to our office. Surely, they must have been getting the same level of feedback as that which was coming to each and every one of us. I've heard other members speaking about the same issue, so it couldn't have been confined to my office alone.</para>
<para>What was needed was structural reform of the scheme, price controls and proper oversight of the expenses. That is not what was proposed by the last coalition government. They simply responded by saying 'We're just going to cut the package amounts,' and they did, and that became another source of complaints. This legislation goes to addressing those very needs. It responds to a review, commissioned by the Albanese Labor government when we came to office, that exposed the problems within the NDIS. It addresses the flaws with the administration of the scheme and it responds to the rorting. I don't expect that this legislation will be the last of the reforms that may be needed. Of course, with any scheme, over the years times change and things change, and there may be other reforms needed, but right now the reforms proposed in this legislation are staring us in the face as to what needs to be done.</para>
<para>Last Sunday, I attended a morning tea recognising the 35th anniversary of an organisation called Lighthouse Disability in South Australia. The morning tea was attended by several other dignitaries, including Lighthouse patrons the Governor of South Australia, Her Excellency the Honourable Frances Adamson, and Mr Rod Bunton. It was also attended by Olivia Savvas MP, the state member for Newland, and by Professor Richard Bruggemann, a longtime disability advocate in South Australia—and right across the country, for that matter. Lighthouse Disability is not-for-profit organisation that began 35 years ago when a band of parents familiar with the challenges and needs of their children with diverse disabilities joined forces to develop accommodation for those with a disability. That the organisation has endured for 35 years and has gone from strength to strength is evidence not only that it serves a community need but also—and more importantly—that the dedicated Lighthouse staff, led by CEO Andrew Ellis and board chair John Harvey, have community confidence. People can see what the organisation is doing and know that it is meeting the needs—particularly with accommodation of people with a disability—and their organisation is now a leading disability organisation in our state in South Australia. Today, Lighthouse Disability, with NDIS support—and I stress that it's with NDIS support—assists more than 250 South Australians through supported independent living and plan management services. At the morning tea it was also interesting to hear the stories from the families and carers of people with a disability. It made it clear to me the life-changing effects that the NDIS has had.</para>
<para>However, there are still shortfalls and improvements to the disability services that can be made and that are being called for. For example, many of the previous state government services that were discontinued when the NDIS came into effect have not been picked up by anybody, and some of those services need to be picked up because they fill gaps that the NDIS doesn't cater for. It's also the case that once people reach 64 years of age they are no longer eligible to come onto the NDIS plan. Whilst I accept that there are aged-care services available, they don't always address the need of people with a serious or severe disability. I understand that young children are not always eligible or entitled to get an NDIS plan, either.</para>
<para>Over the last few days I've been listening to debate on this issue from other members in this House, and in particular from coalition members, who are pointing the finger at this government and saying, 'Look what's happening.' In fact, if you look at some of the newspaper headlines today, there are calls for the $2 billion of rorts that were occurring under the NDIS scheme to be responded to et cetera. All of the problems being raised were occurring under the previous coalition government. The reality is that when the Albanese Labor government was elected it immediately sought to address the problems that people are speaking about, that people on the other side are criticising the Albanese Labor government for. An inquiry was commissioned and it came back with over 20 recommendations. Labor is responding to that and has done so with this legislation.</para>
<para>This legislation is about making the scheme sustainable but also about stopping the malpractice that those on the other side would criticise the Albanese Labor government as being responsible for. They were in office for 10 years, and the very issues that I hear the government criticised for were the issues being brought to my office on a regular basis when they were in office. The reality is: it is Labor that brought this scheme in, it is Labor that wants to make it work, it is Labor that knows the importance and the value of it, and it is Labor that will make the scheme a much better scheme and ensure that it meets the needs of all of those people with a disability and their family members. I commend this legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>More than 660,000 Australians benefit from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and it's hard to believe it has been in place for a decade. One of those people is my grandson Liam, who is four. He has a version of mitochondrial disease, which means he lives with profound disabilities. He's unable to walk, move or talk and is fed with the assistance of a PEG. Life for this beautiful boy and his parents has been made immeasurably better because of NDIS support. While his plan is not elaborate by any means, it has made a difference in his life. For example, he now has a supported chair that enables him to be strapped in to sit upright so he can be more connected with everyone else in the room and strengthen his little muscles. He now has a bodysuit that assists with circulation.</para>
<para>I want to see Liam and every single person on the NDIS thrive, so I want to see the NDIS thrive. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily thriving at present. Each week, I hear from participants who are experiencing lengthy delays in dealing with the National Disability Insurance Agency, the NDIA. As the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is in the chamber, I must say that, as a member of parliament, I greatly appreciate the minister's staff and his department and their ability to problem-solve for the many constituents we receive requests for assistance from. But some do wait months on end for decisions, well in excess of the NDIA's own Participant Services Guarantee, with their circumstances becoming more dire over time.</para>
<para>I've also heard from people who are concerned about exploitation by some unscrupulous providers and the 'gold-plating' of equipment, so that a basic wheelchair now costs thousands of dollars. Just yesterday, after Senate estimates, we heard media reports about drugs, cars and holidays, and courts struggling to manage this. The minister himself has said he doesn't know how big this iceberg is, but it's potentially 10 per cent of NDIS funds. That is astonishing and must be addressed. So it's clear that reform is needed. We've heard this from participants and we've heard it from the independent review of the NDIS.</para>
<para>What will this bill change? The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 will clarify how participants access the scheme. It will clarify how plans are set and funds used, with a new reasonable and necessary budget framework comprising flexible funding and funding for stated supports at the whole-of-person level. It will try to address intra-plan inflation and set limits to prevent exploitation and coercion of some participants who may be vulnerable. Further, it will enable strong compliance and enforcement and prohibit involvement of banned persons in auditing quality under the scheme. These are valid aims, because we want the NDIS to continue into the future. We do not want a future federal government to end the NDIS and return clients to individual states where the support originally sat.</para>
<para>I think we do need to acknowledge that when this program started it had a price tag of around $4 billion. To quote the minister:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We want to make the Scheme fairer, more transparent, and more accountable. It is growing too fast. We believe that if we can moderate the growth of the Scheme, it will be there for future generations.</para></quote>
<para>Future generations are what's important. The NDIS is currently the third-largest program as measured by total general government sector expenses, with estimated expenditure of $41.9 billion in the 2023-24 budget papers. Projections are that it will cost as much as $89 billion by 2031-32, not including operational costs. That is an estimated 2.55 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product.</para>
<para>I have to acknowledge that there are concerns with this framework bill, which sets primary heads of power in broad brushstrokes. In some areas it's a bit light on detail—and I do acknowledge the recent amendments that the government has tabled. A key concern—for many of us in this place, I think—is that too much has been put into delegated legislation and won't have the scrutiny which is the purpose of this place. I understand the desire for flexibility in responding to changing circumstances, which is limited when undertaking a full legislative process at every step. But, if these details are not in the primary legislation, the bill must be absolutely clear that development of and changes to delegated legislation, such as the NDIS Rules and ministerial directions, will require consultation and engagement with people living with disability and their families and advocates.</para>
<para>The community is seeking a guarantee of consultation and co-design, with express requirements in the bill to consult with people living with disability and their advocates, rather than simply 'having regard' to their input. Disability advocates are therefore seeking reassurance that participants will have input into the design of the needs assessment that will form the basis for preparation of a participant's plan. We don't yet know what highly technical assessment methods or tools will be developed or who will conduct these assessments. Disability advocates request a commitment that needs assessments will be conducted by health professionals with an understanding of the participant's or applicant's history and needs. I think that's critical.</para>
<para>Beyond this, I'm pleased that eight elements of support set out in the bill are taken from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but I would like to see the bill also incorporate references to other convention rights, such as the rights to employment and economic participation, with all the benefits—not just financial—to individuals and society which this participation can bring.</para>
<para>I also accept representations that there will remain a need for some flexibility as to the nature of supports set out in the bill, in order to allow for individuals' circumstances. For example, while the explanatory memorandum indicates that air conditioning would not be funded as a support, we know that some disabilities, including spinal cord injury, brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders and muscular dystrophy, can render a person unable to regulate their body temperature, meaning they require such an aid to manage the impact of their disability on their lives. We need to have balance with this.</para>
<para>Disability advocates have also raised concerns that the ability to suspend an existing or new NDIS plan in the case of failure to comply with new, broader information-gathering powers should only be exercised as a last resort. I'm also advised that new constraints on expenditure and the ability to supervise participant spending should be used only if the participant is at high risk of noncompliance, rather than when a participant has perhaps inadvertently failed to comply in a single instance.</para>
<para>Despite my concerns, I do support the need for reform of the NDIS Act. If costs continue to spiral unchecked I'm worried that a future government will abandon the NDIS altogether and it may not survive. States and territories have largely vacated this field, overburdening the NDIS. It was not envisaged under the original agreement; nor does it make for a sustainable scheme. Let's not sink the only lifeboat in the ocean.</para>
<para>Ideally, the bill should not be voted on until members have an opportunity to digest the submissions made to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, with its report not due to be handed down until 20 June. We have seen time and time again the undermining of democratic process when we have the gagging of debate, and I'm very pleased that that has not occurred in this instance—although I feel that the vote on this bill is somewhat rushed. I call on the government to not vote on this bill until we have had the opportunity to look at that Senate committee report. I understand, though, that the reality of this place is that we need to get things through this place and then greater detail happens in the other place. I look forward to seeing what happens with this bill in the other place and then continuing that conversation in here.</para>
<para>In closing, I support this legislation and I am looking forward to a NDIS that is not the only lifeboat in the ocean and a NDIS that is there for future generations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The NDIS came into being just over a decade ago. It represented a real change for many Australians living with disability. The core of the scheme's intent is that any Australian with disability should be able to live a dignified life. The NDIS was envisaged as a safety net to ensure that individuals with disability and their families would not be left behind. The scheme assists some 660,000 Australians annually, and a further 40,000 are working in NDIS related jobs. This is huge. The NDIS is now a part of the support system we offer to those who need support to make sure that they live in a more accessible and equal society.</para>
<para>But the scheme is not working as well or as sustainably as it could. We have before us a chance to start righting the ship. As acknowledged by the government and many in this place, the NDIS is at risk of losing sight of what it was originally intended to do. To many people, including those I represent in Warringah, the NDIS has become a source of frustration, pain and anger as they engage with the bureaucratic system. Redesigning the NDIS to be a cost-effective and efficient administrator that consistently delivers meaningful outcomes for those supported by it must remain our key focus in this process.</para>
<para>I've had many constituents in Warringah contact me around their engagement with the NDIS and their concerns but also their challenges and success stories. There are many disability services and NDIS providers in my electorate that deliver essential services and employment opportunities. My office is often in contact with those NDIS providers, working through issues and helping where we can. I am very grateful to the minister, his staff and his office for the time they have taken to engage with my office to help constituents but also in the process around this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. The minister has partaken in a forum in Warringah; he came and answered many questions and spoke to many constituents. We hope to welcome him back soon for another forum to discuss the changes proposed in this legislation.</para>
<para>One of the real insights and highlights I've had in my job as the independent member for Warringah is witnessing firsthand the transformative power of programs that prioritise the voices of individuals with disability. One of these local disability groups, Northside Enterprise, has a program called Bushlink. It employs people with intellectual disability to carry out environmental projects, focusing on bush regeneration. I recently joined their bush regeneration team out on the Long Reef Headland to learn more about the program. Northside has created a program that fosters meaningful employment and community engagement whilst also maintaining and protecting our natural environment; it is a win-win-win. That is exactly at the core of what the NDIS aspires to be for all those in the disability community.</para>
<para>There are many other wonderful organisations in Warringah, such as Pioneer Clubhouse, Cerebral Palsy Alliance and Manly House, to name just a few. They all do phenomenal work, and it's a real highlight to be able to visit them as a local MP. I've also heard, though, of the frustration from constituents who feel overwhelmed by the complexities of the NDIS and the lack of clarity around their plans and ongoing funding. Under the current system, participants need to supply constant medical reports to prove their conditions. Participants who clearly have lifelong conditions still need to regularly prove to the NDIS the ongoing nature of their condition. It's very costly, a time-consuming burden and very emotionally draining for so many participants—and, I would say, the staff of the NDIA.</para>
<para>There have been several cases where my constituents have been unable to supply, for example, medical reports on time due to long wait times to see medical specialists, alongside the often-great costs involved with these appointments and changes to places. Then, due to their inability to supply those medical reports within the deadline provided, participants have had their NDIS plan funding suddenly stopped or cut back. Some constituents have been lucky that they had a community of family and friends that could temporarily step in, but that's a postcode lottery, and it's not how people should receive the support that they need from the NDIS. At worst, unfortunately, some constituents have had to be hospitalised due to their funding being suddenly cut. That's incredibly unsafe for participants, but what's really disappointing is that, if the system were working as well as it could be, it would be completely avoidable.</para>
<para>I have another example from Warringah. One of the frustrations that constituents have with the current system is the lack of flexibility. I have raised this with the minister. Manly House are a wonderful service that provides specialist disability accommodation under the NDIS on the northern beaches. Their residents often need disability transport at short notice for different outings, including medical appointments. Due to the shortage in New South Wales of disability transport and accessible transport, especially public transport or taxis, residents would like to pool their funding to purchase a vehicle to make it much easier for them to plan their outings and live their lives as normally as possible. This is an initiative from Manly House to provide that service to their residents. Third-party transport can be unreliable, often not available at short notice and extremely expensive on the plans. One of my constituents in Mosman, Joey Sulfaro, is so frustrated by the situation in Sydney around this. He's found it so bad that he has started his own local transport service for people with disabilities. The current framework is too inflexible. It doesn't allow that pooling of transport allocations. We need more NDIA services that work for people and make their lives easier, not more difficult. I have advocated for Manly House to be able to pool their resources, but unfortunately to no avail. I note the minister is here, and I will renew my request for that flexibility to be allowed for transport allocations. It's the sort of issue that needs a common-sense approach to be applied, because ultimately there will be savings for government and for the program as a whole.</para>
<para>The legislation before the House is very much welcome. The NDIS review put into perspective the current state of the scheme and made many recommendations for how to right the ship and ensure it's more sustainable and fit for purpose and true to its original intent. The review also shed light on an operational culture that prioritised the wants of providers over the needs of participants. In short, some people were making a lot of money from the NDIS, whilst people with disabilities were often missing out. It revealed an overly bureaucratic and convoluted structure that served to disenfranchise and alienate individuals and their families.</para>
<para>The review made multiple recommendations, the core of which would be, if implemented, wholesale changes to the way people are assessed for support and the way their funding is then provided. The bill before us lays the foundation for implementing the review's recommendations. It also lays out the operational changes needed to make the scheme sustainable and fit for purpose in the years ahead. This is the part of the change that will alarm people the most: the fear of cuts and rollbacks. So it's very important that good, clear communication and engagement are rolled out by the minister, the NDIA and the department to ensure that participants understand and are taken on the journey. I don't believe that it is the government's intent to make cuts and rollbacks. In fact, the minister has been very clear in saying that they're not looking to knock people off the scheme but that they're looking to build efficiencies and sustainability into the scheme. I very much welcome that.</para>
<para>The cost of the NDIS has been increasing rapidly. Without modification, it's estimated that the NDIS will cost up to $100 billion per year by 2032. That just isn't sustainable and it must be managed sensibly, so I will turn to the details of the bill and what it's going to do. Broadly, the key changes which the bill focuses on are about how people access the scheme, how plans are created and how participants can spend the funds allocated to them. Of course, it's also about how the agency can step in if there are concerns that funds aren't being spent effectively and about the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.</para>
<para>The first change to spell out is about how people are assessed to enter the scheme. The assessment will now be needs based and will form the basis for the overall budget or plan that a participant receives, rather than the current system, where items are basically added line by line. That has meant a very inequitable system, where people with similar disabilities have vastly different plan allocations for no apparent reason—it becomes a bit of a postcode lottery.</para>
<para>The needs based assessment will form the basis for the overall budget or plan the participant receives, but we still need clarity about how needs based assessments will be done and who will undertake them. Many in the disability community are unsettled by the lack of clarity and detail around this assessment. The NDIS review recommended that such assessments must be done by an appropriate a health professional or social worker, and the minister has acknowledged that the assessment will look at support needs as a whole. The near-universal feedback from the disability community is that it's concerned that the assessment won't be genuinely codesigned with a variety of inputs from those with a range of disabilities. This really is a concern; the government doesn't yet have the trust of the community on this front, it needs to be earned. This feeds into the wider issue at hand.</para>
<para>The second major change in the bill—and some say it relies on this excessively—leaves rules and determinations for another day, often to the minister. Whilst, no doubt, this will allow for a more flexible and responsive system to evolve than is currently the case, it's impossible to quantify the changes without further information or clarity from the government. This leads to great concern among participants.</para>
<para>Finally, it remains unclear what will be funded federally and what will be provided by the states and territories. This is another key change and state and territory governments don't appear to be willing to take on the responsibilities they will need to under this refurbished scheme. This lack of clarity remains concerning, and the states need to make sure that they're full and active participants in the scheme to make it work properly—for in the provision of disability transport. We know that this is the responsibility of state governments and that they haven't fulfilled that responsibility adequately to date. Again, transparency is absolutely needed here for the community to have confidence in the government's intentions with respect to the NDIS. I note that there have been a number of discussions, and further negotiations with the minister, about possible amendments from the crossbench. These have very much been led by the member for Kooyong and I look forward to the consideration in detail process that will follow.</para>
<para>It's so important for the government to get this right. The NDIS is an incredible legacy and we need to make sure it works—that it delivers as intended. There is more to do to improve this bill, and I hope the minister listens to the constructive amendments that are going to be put forward. I thank the government and the minister for his engagement to date. There's more to do on this bill. It's only the start, and there is going to be a long process of communication and engagement with the community to ensure the changes that are brought about by this bill are brought in as smoothly and effectively as possible for the participants and the workforce impacted by it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. I do so because I am a huge supporter of the NDIS, which is making a real difference to the lives of more than 660,000 Australians and their loved ones. Many of those Australians live in the Calare electorate, and the impacts of the NDIS have been life changing. The NDIS is truly something our nation can be proud of. It shows the compassionate heart of Australia.</para>
<para>It's no secret that reform is needed. That reform is needed so that the NDIS can continue to support Australians for generations to come. There has been far too much politics attached to reforming the NDIS. The previous government knew that there was an urgent need for reform, but the reality is it hit the pause button on it because they were worried about a scare campaign from the then opposition. History shows that they were right to be worried. So there is some irony in that it now falls to the new government to undertake this work.</para>
<para>But the point is that, when the NDIS is the subject of pointscoring and partisan politics, things just don't get done. There is a lesson in that for all major parties and MPs. The lesson is: keep politics out of the NDIS for the national good. It's positive that the opposition is not going to oppose this bill. They could have done so. They could have gone down the road of political payback, but they have wisely and sensibly chosen not to do that, and I think they are to be commended for that. I believe that the current minister is diligent and hardworking, and getting the NDIS back on track is a huge and difficult undertaking. I believe the minister should be supported in his endeavours and that the states need to do their part as well. Australians want a fair and sustainable NDIS. They don't want to see the NDIS rorted. They want to see help getting to where it's needed.</para>
<para>This bill isn't perfect, but it's an important step forward on work that everyone in this House knows needs to be undertaken. So I wish the minister well with this work and I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>This year marks two years since I had the privilege of becoming the Minister for the NDIS and the Minister for Government Services. In the past two years, the Albanese government, the states and territories, the National Disability Insurance Agency, the disability sector and thousands of people on the scheme have embarked on the big task of getting the NDIS back on track. I've spent every day working with participants and with advocates on how we rebuild the scheme and make sure it's here to stay. I've understood, every day of my time in this job, that we do not have a second, much less a minute or a day, to waste. The NDIS is too important.</para>
<para>We found out on our journey along the way that, whatever one's political differences, most Australians are actually protective of the NDIS in the same way we are of Medicare. We're proud of these policies and we understand that disability is universal. It could affect any of us or someone we love at any time. It's why I've introduced this legislation to the parliament—to improve the scheme's trajectory and to secure the future of our NDIS.</para>
<para>The bill recognises the commitment of the Australian government to delivering better outcomes for people with disability who engage with the NDIS. This bill includes a package of measures to restore the NDIS to its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability within a broader future ecosystem of foundational disability supports. States, territories and the Commonwealth have a common interest and a shared responsibility to support these reforms to secure a future of lasting and meaningful outcomes not just for Australians with a disability engaged with the NDIS, and to make sure all Australians with a disability are included in our society, but also for all Australians.</para>
<para>The NDIS review was commissioned by this government, as we promised at the election. It has worked with the disability community to tell us what's working and, more importantly, what isn't and how the scheme could be improved to achieve the vision desired for people with disability when the scheme was first established in 2013. I'm grateful to the disability community who spent a significant time responding to and engaging with our independent review panel, working toward shaping a vision for how government to: put people with disability back at the centre of the NDIS; restore trust, confidence and pride in the NDIS; and ensure the sustainability of the scheme for future generations. The review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities, hearing directly from more than 10,000 fellow Australians. They worked with disability organisations to reach out and to listen to more than a thousand people with disability in their families. They recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received around 4,000 submissions. Following this remarkable level of consultation engagement, it's the responsibility of the government to now build on and implement the recommendations by planning for the future of the NDIS.</para>
<para>This bill is primarily enabling in nature. It's establishing the scaffolding within the current legislative framework, supported by new and amended rule-making powers. The majority of changes in this bill do not take effect until activated by future changes to NDIS rules. This will be developed with people with disability and the disability community. It will be agreed by all states and territories, consistent with the existing shared governance arrangements. The bill includes some measures that commence immediately, including a greater emphasis on spending within the allocation of a participant's plan where there are no changes of circumstances, which will insist the scheme's sustainability. This reflects the reasonable expectation that participants should spend up to the limit specified in their plan unless their needs do significantly change and, with appropriate safeguards, when others may seek to exploit or coerce a participant to use their package in a way not consistent with their best interests.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill recognise the government's ongoing commitment to delivering the independent review panel's vision for the future reforms of the NDIS. It's about laying the foundations for continuing to make society more inclusive and accessible for the roughly 2½ million Australians with a disability under 65 years of age, and the 650,000-plus people engaged directly with support through the NDIS. It's about a future ecosystem of support for all people with disability and their families.</para>
<para>Australians with disability deserve an NDIS that delivers the best outcomes for them and a scheme that is safe from exploitation. We cannot afford to wait one moment longer to get the NDIS back on track. While the scheme's doing amazing things, and changing the lives for hundreds of thousands of people, participants face confusion, uncertainty and, sadly, exploitation—in some cases, everyday—whilst on the NDIS. We do hear some of the bad news stories. The legislation before parliament will give us what we need to make the NDIS stronger, and to make it easier for participants and providers to use NDIS funding in the right way.</para>
<para>Any delays would continue the illusion that providers or participants can just exhaust their NDIS funds and continue to ask for more funds without good reason. It would continue to create participant uncertainty about what they and their providers can do with NDIS funds. It would continue to allow the dodgy providers—admittedly, a small minority, but they exist nonetheless—to rapidly draw down funds from plans, enabling hit-and-run frauds by such providers. Every month this legislation is delayed will cost people with disability and the taxpayers $160 million in funds—taxpayer funding going out the door to dodgy plan managers and people ripping off the scheme, or going to providers delivering luxury holidays and even gambles. The good providers—the vast majority—are crying out for us to do something to stop bad providers taking advantage of people with disability. Families and participants deserve to be protected from unscrupulous operators.</para>
<para>I'd like to briefly cover the work we've done in the past two years to get to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No.2) Bill today. To describe the NDIS when Labor won government compared to the work we're now doing is like comparing an empty block of land to a building under full construction.</para>
<para>After we won in 2022, I discovered the NDIS was headed in the wrong direction, and it was far worse than I'd imagined. It was growing too fast and too big without proper guardrails in place. It's also important to say, and we found out along the way, that after the years of talking by the previous government, and us talking since, that people seem actually shocked that there is a problem. But there is a problem and it is worse than we imagined.</para>
<para>What we're doing now to fix the scheme across fraud and regulation will protect people with disability and the scheme into the future. We're stopping price gouging, making sure that people who supply services to people on the scheme can't charge a wedding tax for an identical service with someone not on the scheme who isn't charged the same fee. Some allied health professionals hate me talking about it, but the reality is that some are taking advantage of the system, and we owe it to people on the scheme to tell the truth and not see them treated as human ATMs. We've upgraded the NDIS rules with the ACCC to make sure this overcharging is prohibited.</para>
<para>We've invested in the NDIA—the agency running the scheme—to increase its capability to do its job to support people with disability. Every day of the last two years the Albanese government has been absolutely focused on how we can improve the scheme. This legislation is designed to ensure that every dollar gets through to those for whom the scheme was intended and to protect it for future generations. This legislation is the next step in addressing priority recommendations from the NDIS review and return the scheme to its original intent.</para>
<para>The review called for a transition. The proposed changes in this legislation are the start of a journey. The changes will not happen overnight, but the taps have been left on full pelt for too long in some cases. I say to people with disability, 'I understand your legitimate anxiety when you hear the word "change" and you worry that, whatever the imperfections of the NDIS, you'll lose what you have.' That is not the intent of this legislation, but we owe it to the scheme to tell the truth. We'll work with people with disability on an ongoing basis, as well as the sector, the states, the territories and, indeed, the coalition to make sure that Australia has the most accessible and innovative nation in the world for people with disability.</para>
<para>We have a vision to make sure that Australia is more inclusive in our jobs, schools, health systems, justice, public transport and leadership. I work closely with Minister Rishworth on these matters. Australians with disabilities and the people who love them have had to wait a long time to see a better deal. Life is not a dress rehearsal. There's been a five-year disability royal commission and a 12-month review. We want to make sure that the NDIS is not the only lifeboat in the ocean.</para>
<para>There have been some matters offered in the debate which I want to specifically address, which I think go to some of the concerns that people have raised. This bill does not contain new debt recovery powers. There are no changes to the debt recovery provisions. The debt recovery powers remain the same, as per section 182. The changes being made to section 46 are designed to ensure that funds may only be used to obtain supports that are appropriately funded by the NDIS and directed towards a participant's support needs.</para>
<para>Another issue in the debate, this bill does not introduce changes to eligibility or new CEO powers to revoke access. It does make clear that in relation to future access decisions, the NDIS just has to tell participants whether they've entered the scheme because they've met the disability requirements in section 24 or the early intervention requirements in section 25 or both. Currently there is just an access-met decision. Another issue which has been raised by some is that the changes are the same as the previous coalition changes. They are not. There is nothing in this bill that has anything to do with robodebt and there is nothing in this bill that requires or allows automated decision-making or the use of algorithms.</para>
<para>It's also been said that this legislation is a surprise. It is not. Most of the reforms outlined in the bill are addressing priority recommendations from the 2023 review, as I've mentioned. Initial legislative reform was agreed to by the National Cabinet in December 2023 to be brought forward in the first half of 2024. The bill provides the framework for the reforms, which will be developed through deep engagement with the disability community to design subordinate legislation.</para>
<para>I've personally hosted eight events across Australia to discuss the bill following it's introduction, as well as three Department of Social Security webinars. Five thousand community members have joined in person or online. That's on top of the nine town hall meetings I hosted about the review's findings, where another 5,200 participants attended.</para>
<para>Another matter which has been raised in debate which I wish to address is that the financial impact of this bill is unclear. The 2024-25 budget papers show an increase of $1.5 billion in costs over five years compared with 2023-24 and compared to the 23-24 MYEFO budget update. The budget projected, using the data from December 2023, that without further action NDIS payments would increase by $14.4 billion over the years from 2024-25.</para>
<para>Another matter which has been raised in the debate but is not correct is that the legislation is at odds with the NDIS review. The NDIS review made a number of recommendations—recommendations 3, 6, 7 and 8—around access and budget setting that are all consistent with the proposed bill. A core recommendation from the NDIS review is that the scheme should provide a flexible budget for participants based on a consistent and transparent needs assessment. The bill introduces a statutory framework to implement this recommendation, with further details to be co-designed with the community.</para>
<para>There's been some discussion about our willingness to look at amendments—that somehow that makes the bill a bad one. It doesn't. This is how the parliament works. I recognise that all in this parliament and beyond should have the ability to contribute to the formulation of legislation.</para>
<para>There was another matter that somehow funding for the establishment of foundational supports has not eventuated. National Cabinet is committed to funding for foundational supports—supports for people with disability outside the NDIS—to allow for commencement from mid-2025. In establishing more effective early intervention pathways into the scheme, it'll be important to ensure there's alignment with existing foundational supports. My colleague Minister Rishworth is leading this work, and we're working with the states. We've already committed millions of dollars to this process.</para>
<para>There is also an allegation that the bill is changing external or internal review rights. This bill makes no changes to internal or external review rights in regard to participants' plans. Under the proposed new planning framework, participants can seek internal and external review of their plan, which includes their reasonable and necessary budget based on a holistic needs assessment.</para>
<para>Another myth is that this is simply rehashing the former government's independent assessments. This is not correct. The concept of 'reasonable and necessary' remains central to the NDIS. Under the bill, new framework plans will draw on the support needs assessment in setting a reasonable and necessary budget which can be used more flexibly. This departs from the current cumbersome line-by-line determination of individual reasonable and necessary requests, which can produce contested and inconsistent outcomes, according to the review.</para>
<para>Another allegation is that there's no detail on how needs assessments will be developed. I need to be clear: the needs assessment tools—there will need to be several—will be developed through an extensive consultation and co-design process with deep engagement with the disability community and relevant experts. We'll use an iterative process of designing and testing with people with disability, as well as allied health professionals and people with technical expertise in the development of needs assessments. The process will be transparent. It'll involve extensive testing of existing supports needs assessments with groups and disability types for whom they're validated to inform the design of any new needs assessment. These are some of the issues which have been raised with the bill.</para>
<para>In conclusion, we work every day—I work every day—to make the NDIS better. I congratulate the coalition for being willing to engage in a constructive manner—the member for Deakin, in particular. We all understand the NDIS is changing lives for the better—hundreds of thousands of lives. We understand it is an investment, not a deficit. We understand it's creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and careers, small businesses and innovative startups. But it can't be the only lifeboat in the ocean. We do need to tell the truth about the scheme. There is more good news than bad news about the scheme, but some who are most keen on the scheme say that any discussion of the bad news is somehow demonising providers, participants or the scheme. It is not; it is telling the truth. To those who only see the bad news in the scheme and resent the idea of the scheme, it is changing lives. One day, even the critics may well need it. I recommend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:08]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>57</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>82</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>37</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present two supplementary explanatory memoranda to the bill. I ask leave to move government amendments (1) to (8) on sheet PA110 and government amendments (1) to (21) on sheet SK113, as circulated, together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET PA110</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (line 24), before "that the participant", insert "subject to subsection (3A),".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (after line 32), after subsection 30(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The CEO must not request that the participant undergo an assessment under subparagraph (3)(b)(i) or an examination under subparagraph (3)(b)(ii) unless the CEO is satisfied that the report of the assessment or examination would provide information that the CEO cannot otherwise reasonably obtain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 12 (line 30), before "that the participant", insert "subject to subsection (5A),".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 13 (after line 5), after subsection 30A(5), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5A) The CEO must not request that the participant undergo an assessment under subparagraph (5)(b)(i) or an examination under subparagraph (5)(b)(ii) unless the CEO is satisfied that the report of the assessment or examination would provide information that the CEO cannot otherwise reasonably obtain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 36, page 25 (line 34), after "subsections 4(5)", insert ", (9A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 36, page 27 (after line 18), after subsection 32L(6), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6A) The CEO must give the participant a copy of the report as soon as practicable after the CEO receives the report.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 36, page 28 (after line 8), at the end of subsection 32L(7), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: In reviewing a decision to approve a statement of participant supports, a reviewer or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has all the powers of the CEO in making the original decision and must therefore arrange for a replacement assessment to be undertaken if satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (b) (subject to any applicable National Disability Insurance Scheme rules).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 36, page 28 (line 27), after "subsections 4(5)", insert ", (9A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SK113</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 23 to 25), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">funding component amount</inline>,substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">funding component amount</inline>, for a group of reasonable and necessary supports funded under an old framework plan, has the meaning given by paragraph 33(2A)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (c) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">funding period</inline>, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) for funding provided under an old framework plan for all reasonable and necessary supports, or a group of reasonable and necessary supports, funded under the plan—has the meaning given by paragraph 33(2A)(d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 14), omit "section 10", substitute "subsections 10(1) and (4)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 25), omit "specified in", substitute "funded under".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (line 1) to page 7 (line 7), omit section 10, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 10 Definition of <inline font-style="italic">NDIS support</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Supports that are NDIS supports</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subject to subsection (4), a support is an <inline font-style="italic">NDIS support</inline> for a person who is a participant or prospective participant if the support is declared by National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of this subsection to be an NDIS support for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) participants or prospective participants generally; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a class of participants or prospective participants that includes the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of this subsection by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring a support for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for rules to which paragraph (1)(a) applies—that the support is appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants or prospective participants generally; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for rules to which paragraph (1)(b) applies—that the support is appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants, or prospective participants, in the relevant class.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of subsection (1) only if at least one of the following applies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the declaration of the support implements Australia's obligations under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any other agreement with one or more other countries;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the declaration of the support enables the provision of sickness benefits.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For subparagraph (a)(i), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is in Australian Treaty Series 2008 No. 12 ([2008] ATS 12) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Supports that are not NDIS supports</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare that a support is not an <inline font-style="italic">NDIS support</inline> for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) participants or prospective participants generally; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a class of participants or prospective participants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of this subsection by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring a support for the purposes of subsection (4), the Minister must be satisfied:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for rules to which paragraph (4)(a) applies—that the support is not appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants or prospective participants generally; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for rules to which paragraph (4)(b) applies—that the support is not appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants, or prospective participants, in the relevant class.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 36, page 21 (after line 7), at the end of subsection 32E(4), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of this subsection by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 36, page 27 (lines 25 to 27), omit "in accordance with National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of this paragraph".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 36, page 28 (after line 8), after subsection 32L(7), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7A) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may make provision for determining any matter for the purposes of paragraph (7)(b), including by prescribing:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) circumstances in which the CEO must or must not decide under that paragraph that another assessment should be undertaken; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requirements with which the CEO must comply, methods or criteria that the CEO is to apply, or matters that the CEO may, must or must not take into account, in making a decision under that paragraph whether another assessment should be undertaken.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 39, page 29 (line 13) to page 32 (line 12), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">39 After subsection 33(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Total funding amounts, funding component amounts and funding periods</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) In addition to the matters mentioned in paragraphs (2)(a) to (e), the statement of participant supports must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) specify that funding will be provided under the plan to or in relation to the participant, for all reasonable and necessary supports funded under the plan taken as a whole, up to a specified amount (the <inline font-style="italic">total funding amount</inline>) worked out under subsection (2B); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in accordance with any requirements determined under subsection (2E) for the purposes of this paragraph, categorise the reasonable and necessary supports specified under paragraph (2)(b) into one or more groups of supports identified in the statement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) specify that funding will be provided under the plan to or in relation to the participant, for supports in each group identified under paragraph (b) of this subsection, up to an amount (a <inline font-style="italic">funding component amount</inline>) specified in the statement for the group that is worked out in accordance with any requirements determined under subsection (2E) for the purposes of this paragraph; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) specify that funding will be provided under the plan to or in relation to the participant for reasonable and necessary supports during specified periods (each of which is a <inline font-style="italic">funding period</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For paragraph (b), if the statement specifies only a single reasonable and necessary support or class of such supports, the support or class may be categorised and identified as a single group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(a), the total funding amount specified in a statement of participant supports must be an amount equal to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the statement specifies more than one funding component amount—the sum of those amounts; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the statement specifies a single funding component amount—that amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2C) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(d), the statement must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) specify funding periods for funding for either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) all reasonable and necessary supports funded under the plan, taken as a whole; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) each group of supports identified under paragraph (2A)(b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify when each funding period starts and ends; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) specify, for each funding period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if funding periods are specified as mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) of this subsection—the proportion of the total funding amount that will be provided as funding under the plan, during the funding period, for reasonable and necessary supports; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if funding periods are specified as mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii) of this subsection—the proportion of the funding component amount for the group of supports to which the funding period relates that will be provided as funding under the plan, during the funding period, for supports in the group; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if funding periods are specified as mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) of this subsection—specify that the amount of funding for reasonable and necessary supports that will be provided during a funding period will be increased above the proportion specified for the funding period under subparagraph (c)(i) of this subsection by an amount equal to the amount by which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the amount of funding that could have been provided under the plan for reasonable and necessary supports during the immediately preceding funding period; exceeds</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the amount of funding that was actually provided for such supports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if funding periods are specified as mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii) of this subsection—specify that the amount of funding, for supports in a group to which a funding component amount relates, that will be provided during a funding period for that group will be increased above the proportion specified for the funding period under subparagraph (c)(ii) of this subsection by an amount equal to the amount by which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the amount of funding that could have been provided under the plan for supports in that group during the immediately preceding funding period for that group; exceeds</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the amount of funding that was actually provided for supports in that group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2D) For the purposes of paragraph (2C)(b):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a funding period must be no more than 12 months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the duration of a particular funding period may be different from the duration of any other funding period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) without limiting paragraph (b) of this subsection, if the funding periods are specified as mentioned in subparagraph (2C)(a)(ii), then the duration of the funding periods for one group of supports identified in the plan under paragraph (2A)(b) may be different from the duration of funding periods for any other group of supports identified in the plan under paragraph (2A)(b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if funding periods are specified as mentioned in subparagraph (2C)(a)(i):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the first funding period must start on a day worked out in accordance with any requirements determined under subsection (2E) for the purposes of this subparagraph; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) each other funding period must start immediately after the end of the immediately preceding funding period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if funding periods are specified as mentioned in subparagraph (2C)(a)(ii):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the first funding period for a group of supports must start on a day worked out in accordance with any requirements determined under subsection (2E) for the purposes of this subparagraph; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) each other funding period for the group of supports must start immediately after the end of the immediately preceding funding period for that group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2E) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) requirements for categorising reasonable and necessary supports into groups for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) how to work out a funding component amount for a group of supports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) how to work out when a first funding period is to start for the purposes of subparagraph (2D)(d)(i) or (e)(i); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) requirements with which the CEO must comply, methods or criteria that the CEO is to apply, and matters that the CEO may, must or must not take into account, in doing any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) working out a funding component amount;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specifying funding periods for the purposes of paragraph (2C)(a);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) deciding any other matter for the purposes of subsection (2A), (2C) or (2D).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline> does not apply to the instrument (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2F) Despite subsection 14(2) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>, a determination under subsection (2E) of this section may make provision for or in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">How supports may be specified in plan</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 74, page 40 (line 17) to page 41 (line 29), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">74 At the end of section 45</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Agency must not pay an amount under the National Disability Insurance Scheme to any person in respect of a participant's plan if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the plan is a new framework plan that provides that flexible funding will be provided under the plan and the payment would result in any of the following events occurring:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the total amount of flexible funding provided under the plan exceeding the total funding amount specified in the plan under paragraph 32E(2)(a);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the total amount of flexible funding provided under the plan during a funding period exceeding the amount of funding that is to be provided under the plan during the funding period; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the plan is a new framework plan that provides that funding will be provided under the plan for a stated support, or class of stated supports, and the payment would result in any of the following events occurring:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the total amount of funding provided under the plan for the stated support or class of stated supports exceeding any total funding amount specified in the plan under paragraph 32G(2)(a);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the total amount of funding provided under the plan for the stated support or class of stated supports during a funding period for the support or class of supports exceeding the amount of funding that is to be provided under the plan during the funding period for the support or class of supports; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the plan is an old framework plan and the payment would result in any of the following events occurring:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the total amount of funding provided under the plan for reasonable and necessary supports exceeding the total funding amount specified in the plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the total amount of funding provided under the plan for reasonable and necessary supports in a group of supports to which a funding component amount relates exceeding that funding component amount;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if the plan specifies funding periods for all reasonable and necessary supports funded under the plan, taken as a whole—the total amount of funding provided under the plan for such supports during a funding period exceeding the amount of funding for such supports that is to be provided under the plan during the funding period;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) if the plan specifies funding periods for one or more groups of reasonable and necessary supports—the total amount of funding provided under the plan for supports in such a group during a funding period for that group exceeding the amount of funding for supports in that group that is to be provided under the plan during the funding period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to the payment of an amount if the CEO is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant event would occur because the participant has experienced fraud or financial exploitation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) making the payment is necessary to prevent or lessen an imminent threat to an individual's life, health or safety; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the participant has been unable to request a variation or reassessment of the participant's plan because of one or more of the participant's impairments or a lack of decision-making support; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the participant has requested a variation of the participant's plan covered by subparagraph 47A(1)(d)(i) or (1AB)(j)(i) (crisis or emergency funding as a result of a significant change to the participant's support needs), and neither of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the CEO has made a decision on the request to vary the plan and the variation has taken effect;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the CEO has made a decision on the request not to vary the plan (including because of the operation of subsection 47A(5)); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a circumstance prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph exists.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 78, page 45 (after line 19), after subparagraph 47A(1AB)(j)(i), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) the CEO is satisfied that the participant requires funding because the participant has experienced fraud or financial exploitation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ib) the CEO is satisfied that the variation is necessary to prevent or lessen a threat to the participant's life, health or safety (whether current or future); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 1, item 80, page 46 (line 6) to page 47 (line 15), omit paragraphs 47A(1A)(ab) to (af), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) if the statement of participant supports included in the plan specifies one or more funding component amounts—a variation of the categorisation of the reasonable and necessary supports, specified under paragraph 33(2)(b), into one or more groups of supports;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ac) for the purposes of dealing with a variation covered by paragraph (ab) of this subsection—a variation of one or more funding component amounts, or the number of those amounts, specified in the statement of participant supports, other than a variation that would result in an increase in the total funding amount for the plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ad) if the statement of participant supports included in the plan specifies funding periods for all reasonable and necessary supports funded under the plan, taken as a whole—the following variations of the statement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a variation of the number or duration of such funding periods;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a variation of the proportion of the total funding amount that will be provided as funding under the plan for reasonable and necessary supports during one or more funding periods;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ae) if the statement of participant supports included in the plan specifies funding periods for one or more groups of reasonable and necessary supports—the following variations of the statement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a variation of the number or duration of the funding periods for such a group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a variation of the proportion of the funding component amount for such a group that will be provided as funding under the plan, during one or more funding periods that group, for reasonable and necessary supports in that group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 1, item 82, page 47 (lines 22 to 28), omit subsection 47A(1B), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) To avoid doubt:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a variation covered by any of paragraphs (1A)(ab) to (ae) must be made in accordance with subsections 33(2A) to (2D) and any determination in force for the purposes of subsection 33(2E); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a total funding amount for an old framework plan cannot be varied except by a variation covered by paragraph (1A)(d) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conditions not limited</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1C) The fact that a paragraph in subsection (1AA), (1AB) or (1A) covers only certain kinds of variations does not limit the power under paragraph (1)(b) for the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules to prescribe conditions that have the effect of limiting the kinds of variations that may be made under subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 1, item 99, page 52 (after line 1), at the end of subsection 74(6), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For example, National Disability Insurance Scheme rules could be made under this subsection that apply for the purposes of making a decision under paragraph (5)(a) whether a child is capable of making decisions for himself or herself.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 1, item 115, page 54 (line 4), omit paragraph (aaa), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aaa) subsections 10(1) and (4);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 1, item 116, page 54 (line 16), omit paragraph (ci), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ci) subsection 32L(7A);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Schedule 1, item 124, page 57 (line 2) to page 58 (line 13), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">124 NDIS supports</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This item applies until the commencement of the first National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of subsection 10(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Section 10 of that Act has effect as if a reference in that section to the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules were a reference to rules made under item 138 of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Schedule 1, item 129, page 59 (line 20), omit "Sections", substitute "Subject to subitem (3), sections".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Schedule 1, item 129, page 59 (after line 29), at the end of the item, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsection 33(2A) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013</inline>, as in force on and after the commencement of this Schedule, applies in relation to a statement of participant supports included in an old framework plan for a participant if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the statement is approved on or after the commencement (the <inline font-style="italic">determination commencement</inline>) of the first determination made under subsection 33(2E) of that Act (as inserted by this Schedule); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the decision to approve the statement is not covered by subitem (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This subitem covers the following decisions made on or after the determination commencement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a decision made by a reviewer under subsection 100(6) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013</inline> on review of a decision made by a decision-maker before the determination commencement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a decision, made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on review of a decision made by a reviewer under that subsection:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) before the determination commencement; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on or after the determination commencement, if the decision reviewed by the reviewer was made by a decision-maker before the determination commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subitem (3) applies whether the participant becomes a participant before, on or after the determination commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Schedule 1, item 135, page 61 (line 7), omit "Subsections 47A(1A) and (3)", substitute "(1) Paragraphs 47(1A)(a) and (ag), and subsection 47A(3),".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Schedule 1, item 135, page 61 (after line 11), at the end of item 135, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Paragraphs 47A(1A)(ab) to (af), and subsection 47A(1B), of the <inline font-style="italic">National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013</inline>, as in force on and after the commencement of this Schedule, apply in relation to the variation of an old framework plan if subsection 33(2A) of that Act applied in relation to the approval of the plan (see subitems 129(3) to (5)).</para></quote>
<para>I'm happy to explain the amendments on the basis of any consideration of detail. We presented the bill in March and it follows the review, but we always understood that, in presenting the bill, we wanted the contribution of people in the disability sector. We were interested to hear days of hearings from the Senate committee and to talk to the disability sector in the event that they could make observations as to how we could further improve the initial bill. These amendments represent the recognition that we can improve the bill, courtesy of contributions from crossbenchers, from the disability sector and from submissions that we have received. I'm happy to engage in the debate.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a very quick statement on these amendments. The Greens believe these amendments are a rushed attempt to make a bad bill slightly more acceptable. They demonstrate that the government still has not heard the feedback they have assertively received from the disability community, as the identified issues have not come close to being properly addressed. While there are some parts of the government amendments that will not actively make the bill worse, the fundamental issues are unchanged. There are also some parts of these amendments that will increase ministerial power, and these are of great concern to us. The Greens have heard the disability community and we will continue to work with disabled people and their families to oppose this rushed bill which will do so much harm to disabled people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't share the member's concerns and I don't think it's a fair characterisation of the process. The member says it's been rushed. We've had a four-year disability royal commission and a 12-month review into the whole scheme. I worry that the argument that there's too much rush is actually selling people with disability short, because there are problems which need to be dealt with now.</para>
<para>I don't know if the member heard my second reading contribution. It's forgivable if you didn't, but I'll just repeat a couple of the key points in it. There are issues which need to be resolved now. Every month we wait sees people with disability, the NDIS and taxpayers face costs of an extra $160 million. This is a real issue. We've moved amendments, and I'll go through them. There was a concern that somehow NDIS support needs were going to be narrowed. We've clarified that to make sure that, as we move from line to line, budgeting on a more flexible basis, we have a constitutional basis and some reasonable constraints. We've heard concerns about the use of the APTOS—the Applied Principles and Tables of Support, first agreed by first ministers in 2015 as an interim approach to defining NDIS supports—that it was out of date and not sufficiently clear. We've updated that, reflecting the concerns of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.</para>
<para>Other amendments include technical amendments to clarify the operation of new provisions and to improve the operation of planning provisions in section 23. We want to provide certainty about the amount of funding that participants have available during a specified time and assist participants in managing their funding. Our amendments clarify exceptional circumstances when payments can be made above a relevant funding amount. Our amendments make clear the legislative instruments setting out the needs assessment process and the method for calculating reasonable and necessary budgets, and that the minister needs to have regard to section 4(9A), which states that 'people with disability are central to the NDIS'. So we're putting in a specific endorsement of the principle of co-design. We're placing limitations on the proposed new powers of the CEO to request a participant to attend an assessment or examination. But we do need some powers because, at the moment, there are 13,000 participants whom we are unable to contact. That's not a realistic proposition going forward.</para>
<para>We are expressly going to require the CEO to provide a needs assessment report to the participant. There's been talk in the scheme that, somehow, participants won't get to be consulted about their needs assessment. That's not true. There's also a myth, which has been circulated, that review rights around the needs assessment are being abolished—they're specifically not. In fact, I thank Dr Ryan and PIAC, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and others for making sure that we are doubled down on the basis of the existence of internal/external review processes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments moved by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—At the request of the member for Kooyong, I move amendments (2), (4), (5), (6) and (9) to (13), as circulated in her name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 36, page 24 (after line 25), after subsection 32H(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) However, such a requirement may only be specified if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the requirement is reasonably necessary to achieve a specific purpose consistent with the objects of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to do so would not be unduly burdensome for the participant, after considering:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the potential separate or cumulative effects of financial costs associated with complying with the requirement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the practical effects of complying with the requirement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the participant's emotional and psychological distress in complying with the requirement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 36, page 26 (after line 28), at the end of section 32K, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) When a copy of a determination made under subsection (2) is tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>, the Minister must cause to be tabled with that copy a consultation statement setting out the views of the Organisations consulted under paragraph (3)(a) about the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) A determination made under subsection (2) is invalid and unenforceable if subsection (3) or (7) is not complied with in relation to the determination. This subsection has effect despite section 19 of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 36, page 27 (lines 5 to 8), omit subsection 32L(3), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The assessment must assess the participant's need for supports based on a holistic understanding of the participant's disability support needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 36, page 27 (line 15), after "prepared", insert "with the participant".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 36, page 28 (after line 34), at the end of section 32L, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) When a copy of a determination made under subsection (8) is tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>, the Minister must cause to be tabled with that copy a consultation statement setting out the views of the Organisations consulted under subsection (10) about the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) A determination made under subsection (8) is invalid and unenforceable if subsection (10) or (12) is not complied with in relation to the determination. This subsection has effect despite section 19 of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 46, page 33 (lines 5 to 10), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 54, page 34 (line 29), after "within that period—", insert "withdraw the request or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 1, item 78, page 45 (line 30), at the end of subsection 47A(1AB) (before the note), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (k) a minor variation that results in an increase to the funding of a stated support or class of stated supports that will be provided under the plan during one or more funding periods.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 1, page 52 (after line 8), after item 102, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">102A Subsection 99(1) (before table item 5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">102B Subsection 99(1) (after table item 5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<para>I'm speaking on behalf of the member for Kooyong, who's not here today due to sickness. I'm pleased that the government has accepted some of the amendments proposed by the member for Kooyong and supported by the sector, specifically around requiring appropriate consultation and co-design in the development of rules about the needs assessment and support, which has been a real concern; embedding the review of the needs assessment and statement of participant supports; giving participants surety that they will be able to have those draft documents reviewed by the CEO on request; and giving participants the right to obtain and/or request a replacement assessment in relation to each statement of participant supports when they don't agree with the first needs assessment. The remaining amendments that I'll be discussing today provide some additional protections for participants and the sector. I would like to point out that a number of these amendments have been agreed quite quickly. It may be that some of these amendments are covered by the government amendments, and we'll be looking at them in great detail.</para>
<para>To run through those: in amendment (2), the proposed section 32H creates additional requirements for accessing support, which may include requiring supports provided by a specific person or specific conditions are satisfied. The advocacy groups are concerned that this wording could place an inappropriately broad range of potential constraints on participants' choice and control over their funding and supports, particularly where the discretion to impose those constraints would lie with the NDIA alone. Amendment (2) makes it clear that additional requirements could only be specified where necessary to achieve a specific purpose consistent with the objects of the scheme and where the imposition of that requirement would not be unduly burdensome for a participant.</para>
<para>Amendment (4) relates to consultation on delegated legislation. Under the proposed amendments put by the government, the minister has addressed this. Additional delegated legislation for needs assessment and budget-setting can be created, and this amendment (4) provides greater comfort about to consultation process by requiring the tabling of a consultation statement, which seems reasonable given the level of concern in the sector about the lack of consultation and co-design and the consequences of that. The government must develop the delegated legislation—the NDIS rules—via consultation, co-design and testing, which must include First Nations people with disability; people from disability-specific communities; people from rural, regional and remote locations; people with disability who are digitally excluded; people with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; and LGBTQIA+ people with disability. That's why there's that additional requirement in relation to the consultation process.</para>
<para>There are a number of additional amendments there that relate to holistic understanding of the participants' disability supports, which is a really important part; it is not linked to specific impairments—also in relation to the report of the assessment, to be prepared with the participant to make sure that there is appropriate engagement with a participant and also in relation to replicating the need for consultation in making determinations about the assessment process.</para>
<para>I encourage the government to look at these assessments and thank the minister for his engagement on these amendments. We'll be looking very closely at the delegated legislation to ensure that the disability community's concerns are addressed in the development of that delegated legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might briefly reply to the member for Curtin's submissions on behalf of the member for Kooyong, who couldn't be with us. I acknowledge that both members, including the crossbench, have been very interested in NDIS development, and I appreciate the constructive discussions we've had. There'll be a subsequent amendment, which I think we agree on and which the crossbench is moving, but some of the government amendments that we just voted on did actually reflect some of the issues. They were an attempt—perhaps imperfect—to meet the crossbench concerns halfway. So some of the amendments we've already voted on go to some of the issues somewhat that the member for Curtin was raising.</para>
<para>Specifically, with regard to the proposed amendment to section 32H, we think that the test of 'unduly burdensome' is difficult to apply. We think it could defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to support agency commissioned supports. We're trying to deal with a situation where there are thin markets. We are not restricting choice and control, but the reality is that, where there are thin markets in regional and remote Australia, we need to look at direct commissioning, and that's what this is about.</para>
<para>With regard to the amendments to section 32K, we've tried to meet that halfway. I'm a believer in co-design and co-production with people with disability. That's what I've been doing for 17 years in this House. We accept the crossbench proposition that they'd like to see more focus on it. We feel the extent that this specific amendment goes to creates a legal risk of precedent setting across the government, but we have just voted in the House to ensure that a specific reference to considering the principle of co-design has to be taken into account.</para>
<para>With regard to the amendment to section 32L, the reason we don't like it, in shorthand, is that we think it creates an opening of the floodgates for the health system to transfer their costs into the NDIS, which is already a challenge. That's the substance of why we don't want to create expectations that the NDIS could fund support needs outside the scope of the NDIS and not relate it to impairments to meet the disability or early intervention requirements.</para>
<para>With regard to the amendment of section 32L, we've tried to cover that already in a different form with the last of our amendments that we just voted on. Our issue with why we couldn't quite go to the extent that the crossbench would have liked in this amendment is that we don't know the form of needs assessment there will be, and we therefore don't know the form that the reports will take. It's likely that the report will simply reflect the content of the needs assessment without providing commentary on it, so involvement of the participant may not be needed at that the point when they have a requirement to be involved either before or at the conclusion of the assessment of the plan. Potentially, the issue driving this amendment could be addressed by amendments confirming that a support needs assessment is provided to the participant with an opportunity to comment, and that's what we'd seek to do.</para>
<para>With section 32L(7), the next amendment, I worry that what we want to discourage is what you would call doctor shopping. That's essentially where people move between report writers until they get the report they want. We want to have a proper assessment, and we want a transparent assessment which the participant can agree to, disagree to or modify, but there is an issue now of people shopping around, and we just want to take that moral hazard off the table but still give the participant empowerment in the process, which is what we're doing.</para>
<para>With regard to the amendment to section 32L allowing the minister to determine the needs assessment, we worry that there's some legal risk with that. We think that the amendments are too vague; therefore, I'm advised that the risk is not insubstantial. We will consult. We already have a co-design requirement under subsection 4(9A) of the NDIS Act, as well as under the Legislation Act. We will work on talking with disability organisations, but we don't think this amendment is necessary to tell us to do that.</para>
<para>With regard to the amendment removing section 34(1)(aa), this paragraph provides that a reasonable and necessary support in an old framework plan must be necessary to address the needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability or intervention requirements. This is a lever by which we can help make sure that the NDIA can constrain funding for impairments that would not be most appropriately supported through the NDIS.</para>
<para>The proposed amendment (11) doesn't prevent the CEO from making a further request, because we're not sure that that amendment would achieve the apparent policy approach.</para>
<para>With regard to the insertion of a new circumstance which is a variation of a participant's reasonably assumed budget, we think that this circumstance was not included for the new framework plans as it can fuel intraplan inflation.</para>
<para>We're trying to make sure that we respect where the amendments are coming from, but we also think that we've met them partway.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to make a very quick point, and then I'll hand over. We respect not just the crossbench contributions but the research behind them. We have met the issues around co-design. In my second reading speech I addressed that this is not giving new debt-raising powers, this is not giving the CEO new powers, and this is not getting rid of review processes. We look forward to the amendment about reviewing the bill in five years' time, and, because of the contribution from the amendments—if we haven't agreed to them in letter or in word—we have taken up the principle, certainly around co-design.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just rising to say the Greens will be supporting these amendments moved by the member for Curtin on behalf of the member for Kooyong based on our current understanding of the bill and the impact it will have on NDIS participants and the wider disability community. The inquiry into this bill is still ongoing and will inform our position in the Senate as well as any other amendments. We will put forward our amendments in the Senate as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that amendments (2), (4), (5), (6) and (9) to (13), moved by the member for Curtin, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:34]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>34</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We shall move to the next set of amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1), as circulated in the name of the member for Kooyong:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 2 (after line 16), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Review</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the amendments made by this Act to be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of the 5-year period starting on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The persons who conduct the review must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consult with the public in conducting the review; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) give the Minister a written report of the review in sufficient time to enable the Minister to comply with subsection</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 9 months after the end of that 5-year period.</para></quote>
<para>Amendment (1) relates to requiring an independent review after a five-year period that involves consultation with the public, with a written report to be tabled within nine months. Given the scale of these changes and the importance of getting this right, it seems appropriate to consider the impact of these amendments and have a look at how they're actually working. This is a huge piece of legislation regarding a very expensive scheme. On that basis, I think it would be reasonable to have a review of how the changes to the scheme are working after that period.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government thinks that this is a very good amendment. In recent times it hasn't been uncommon to include a requirement to review legislation after a set period of time.</para>
<para>A part of the reason that we're agreeing to this is that the NDIS doesn't belong to any political party or to any particular point of view. It belongs to Australia. The NDIS is a universal scheme which is based on the proposition that any of us or anyone that we love could have a disability.</para>
<para>The scheme is remarkable. It is very difficult necessarily to please everyone, not because that's the motivation but rather that for people who've fought hard to get a set of supports, the talk of any change is legitimately anxious making. But the alternative of doing nothing as opposed to changing the scheme would be disastrous. The alternative views that it's too hard or that we should be suspicious of anything, provide the shadows in which some service providers continue to exploit participants and we don't get the best outcomes.</para>
<para>I do compare the NDIS to Medicare, but Medicare is now 40-plus years old, and it's taken its time to develop, and it's had its ups and its downs. What is pleasing in Australia at the moment is that Medicare used to be a contested political item over a series of elections. The NDIS has this opportunity to move from being a contested issue into one where people of all political persuasions just want to make sure it works as well as it can, but there's no questioning that it should exist, and I think we've reached that point so far. I say to those who are worried about this legislation: we'll certainly listen to opposition amendments in the Senate—to amendments from the Greens political party and, indeed, from crossbenchers there—but the argument that somehow everything is too hard and we should delay things and keep delaying them sells short the future of the scheme and people with disability.</para>
<para>Disability advocates have a lot of muscle memory about previous policy changes, which disturbs them and makes them legitimately concerned about any proposals. But these proposals are not out of the blue. That is not a fair characterisation. I want to be very clear that we have had a one-year review by Bruce Bonyhady and Lisa Paul. There was a lot of consultation. It was independent—despite the odd snide attempt to say it wasn't. It was an honest endeavour to look at how we could improve the scheme.</para>
<para>I think what the review did and what the legislation assumes is that the NDIS is a giant chapter in the history of people with disability in this country. There had been work done before the NDIS, in human rights legislation and a range of areas, but the NDIS is indisputably a giant chapter because it provides economic agency and empowerment to people with disability and the people who love them. It is an endeavour to relieve aging carers' midnight anxiety about who will look after their adult family member when they no longer can. It is also a view that impairment is just one attribute of a human being and that the barriers society puts in people's path are what truly disables people. This scheme sees people in the whole. This legislation proposes that our processes to assess them should be in the whole.</para>
<para>This is not the only measure we're taking, as I've said previously in the House and elsewhere, but this legislation is another necessary step on the journey to creating a more inclusive Australia. The government have no hubris about it. We will continue listening to the contributions and continue to take seriously the views of others. That's why we're happy to support this amendment, in that spirit. I congratulate the member for Kooyong for working on this issue.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>47</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7194" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>47</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A very important milestone was celebrated on 1 February this year. The event that it celebrated occurred 40 years ago and it has shaped modern Australia for the better. Further, it was an event that has placed Australia head and shoulders above almost every other country in the world. I am of course referring to Medicare. To mark the 40th anniversary of Medicare, a special commemorative green card was produced, and, along with the Prime Minister, I was pleased to attend a small morning tea in the building.</para>
<para>Commemorative cards and cakes are wonderful and they certainly have their place, but an even better way to celebrate Medicare is to strengthen it. Let me recount a personal story that could be replicated all over the country by people of my vintage. It highlights why bulk-billing and the 40th anniversary of Medicare are so important. When I was about eight, my sister and I were both unwell. There was no Medicare, no bulk-billing and only enough money in my household for one doctor's visit. Suffice to say, my laryngitis lost out to my sister 's inability to breathe. I recount this story because the choice my parents made all those years ago was a choice that no parent should ever have to make. Thankfully, as members can attest, my voice survived the ordeal, my sister is still well and my family did not have to become bankrupt because of the medical costs.</para>
<para>Labor has always had Medicare's back. We thought of it, built it, added to it and we are always defending it. Few government programs are as widely loved or respected as Medicare. The program makes dilemmas of the type that my parents faced all those years ago a thing of the past. Perhaps it's the universality of Medicare that appeals—that is, regardless of position or status or where one went to school, Medicare applies to all without discrimination. The green card we have in our pocket or wallet is the envy of the rest of the world, and we intend to keep it that way. After years of neglect by the former government, the Albanese government is always looking for opportunities to make Medicare fit for purpose, and our record in just two years is impressive.</para>
<para>On the large scale, we've bolstered the backbone of Medicare: bulk-billing. We did this last year by tripling the bulk-billing incentive. This was one of the signature announcements of last year's budget, and it's worked. Even today we see another increase in the bulk-billing rate across the country. Every state and territory has seen an increase in bulk-billing since last year's budget. But it does not end there, which brings me to the legislation before us today. The previous government neglected Medicare. The heart, ideology and, importantly, budget dollars just weren't there. But all good ideas, even in practice, need to keep going and mature. This bill modernises bulk-billing and makes it easier to be bulk-billed. The bill addresses two things that were not addressed by the previous government: making bulk-billing arrangements easier and safeguarding Medicare from fraud. The result was that, when we came back to office two years ago, Medicare was open to fraud and bulk-billing arrangements were archaic.</para>
<para>The legislation before us will make reforms easier, particularly for patients and their practitioners. Under current arrangements, the Health Insurance Act sets out a complex method by which a patient can assign their Medicare benefit to either their insurer or their practitioner. This involves paper forms requiring two signatures. This bill will bring the assignment of benefit process into the 21st century. The proposed amendments before us will enable electronic and digital solutions to be used when seeking agreements to assign benefits for Medicare services. The end result will be a simpler process for both patients and practitioners and a stronger Medicare. There is still some work to be done regarding the forms and the systems that will be used in the new processes, and I know the appropriate practitioner representative organisations will be consulted in this process. We need to get it right the first time. But the bill is an important step after years of neglect by the previous government.</para>
<para>A stronger and fairer, fit-for-purpose Medicare is the aim of this bill and of this government. It's something that all Australians can agree on and it's something that Labor governments will always strive for. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the second reading on this bill, the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024. As the lead speaker for the opposition has indicated, we support the passage of the bill. Clearly, any opportunity to improve the way in which the private health insurers, the private hospitals et cetera and, most importantly, the consumers are interacting with the Medicare system is a very good thing. But it is also an opportunity to speak about some broader issues around Medicare and private health. Obviously, we in the opposition, like any Australian in the community, are quite concerned about elements of the Medicare system at the moment, particularly the reduction in bulk-billing rates. When we left office, it was over 88 per cent, and now it's down to 77 per cent under Labor. That is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, meaning that more people are paying more out of their pocket for their health services and that, quite concerningly, a lot of people aren't accessing the health system when they should be, because of the cost to them and their inability to meet those costs.</para>
<para>In my home state of South Australia, things are very grim within our health system. There are problems everywhere we look. We've endured days of elective surgery cancellations across the major metropolitan hospitals in Adelaide and ambulance ramping is worse than it has ever been—the data released for the month of May had it at the highest on record. This is reverberating throughout the health system. Obviously, if people are waiting in the back of an ambulance because they can't get admitted to a hospital, then that's not only a problem for the person that deserves and needs immediate care; it's not only a problem for the efficient running of our hospital system; and it's not only a problem for people who are therefore waiting longer for ambulances that can't respond to the call because of course they've got a patient in the back of their ambulance, which is ramped outside of the emergency room because they can't unload them, but it also means that there are enormous pressures through the broader system.</para>
<para>I also want to take this opportunity to put on the record my strong support for the private health insurance system and the private hospital system. I have a number of private hospitals in my electorate, and I know that the peak body for private hospitals in Australia is very concerned about the sustainability of private hospitals in this country at the moment. It's something that I hope the minister is looking at very closely and considering, because part of this bill talks about more efficiencies for Medicare benefits being processed through the private system. What I'm very concerned about is the overall sustainability of the system and whether or not the payments to private hospitals are rising appropriately. Given that private health insurance, certainly, is increasing fairly significantly, are those increases to private insurance premiums flowing to increases from the insurers to the people providing the service? We'll be in big trouble in this country if we see the private hospital system continue to deteriorate. In South Australia, a number of private hospitals are hitting viability brick walls and that's taking capacity out of the overall health system.</para>
<para>For people who demonise the private health system, particularly those in the Greens party, I'll just point out that every procedure done in the private system is one taking pressure out of the public system. It's just like private schools. The Greens always had the position that they don't want a private system at all; they've always had positions like scrapping the private health insurance rebate. Ideologically, the Greens don't want a private system—much like they don't want a private system in education, I might add. But they don't want private hospitals to exist. It will impact on my constituents very substantially if the Greens ever get their way and see the destruction of the private health system—particularly the private hospital system in this country. I've got hospitals like the Burnside Hospital, an endowment from Mr Otto bon Rieben, who passed away in the 1940s and left his home to the Burnside council. It operates as a private hospital now, and provides an enormously important service. In fact, my father—who might not have given me consent to reveal this to the House!—had a procedure there recently. I won't give further detail about what it was, to protect his private medical records! But he had a procedure there, and we very much appreciate the services that private hospitals like the Burnside Hospital, North Eastern Community Hospital and Sportsmed—and the list goes on—provide. They take enormous pressure off the public system, and the public system in South Australia, like across the country, is already bursting at the seams, so undermining the private hospital system is the last thing that we need right now.</para>
<para>In commending this bill to the House, and given that this is a bill about the way in which we support private providers and private hospitals through the health insurance system, I urge the health minister to please listen to the concerns they're raising. This concerns me greatly: whilst private health insurance premiums are increasing significantly for consumers, are the payments from private insurance companies increasing at the same rate to the people who are actually providing the services? If they're not then there's a serious viability issue imminent. I know that some of the smaller hospitals are already struggling to keep their doors open, and we don't want the situation where that capacity in our health system goes.</para>
<para>I also urge the Greens to reflect, when we're debating this legislation, on their dangerous position to get rid of the private health insurance rebate, to undermine the private health system in this country and to effectively remove an enormous capacity for treatment of Australians who need it more than ever. If we saw the collapse of the private health insurance system and the private hospital system because the Greens don't support it ideologically, then all Australians will be the worse for that. I just warn the Greens that their dangerous position in this area is not good for any Australian and is something they should strongly consider changing.</para>
<para>With those comments, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, let me reassure the member for Sturt that the private health insurance system is very safe whilst this government is in power. It's very important that people understand that Australia's health system, which I think is the best in the world, functions as a combination of public and private health insurance systems. That's what Medicare is—a public universal health insurance system that is complemented by a private health insurance system. While I'm here and present, while the minister for health is here and the Labor government is here, both systems are safe, as they work so well together.</para>
<para>I congratulate the minister for health for introducing this bill, the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024—yet another way that we, the Labor government, are improving our health system after 10 years of neglect by the former coalition government. We've come a long way. It's important to understand that Medicare—the precursor to Medicare being Medibank—was developed over 50 years ago by Scotton and Deeble, and this is the system Gough Whitlam adopted, when he came to power, under the name Medibank. That was the first universal health insurance system we had in Australia that provided universal access to health care for all Australians. It's important we keep that equitable model going. It was destroyed by the Fraser coalition government, with the defeat of Gough Whitlam, but it was reinvented and improved by the Hawke Labor government. It started in 1984, the year I started my private practice. We've come a long way since those days.</para>
<para>If you can remember going to see a doctor in the first days of Medicare, you had to sign a Medicare form which was then swiped by the provider, and one copy was given to the patient and the other copy was kept by the practice, and the bill itself was then bundled together and sent by post, by snail mail, to the department of health in Canberra. It was then processed, and, some weeks later, the provider got the rebate in a cheque form, which was then taken to the bank and banked. There were often problems with people not being able to read the item numbers on the forms, with people ticking the wrong box in the name—so you'd get the rebate back and there'd be mistakes and you wouldn't get the money you were owed for the consultation with that particular patient, and you then had to go back to Medicare and get another cheque issued. My secretary, Cheryl, who worked with me for over 35 years, had to then rebundle the bill and send it back to Medicare, and, again, some weeks later, you'd get the cheque that could then be banked.</para>
<para>Every day, thousands and thousands of Australians around the country use their Medicare card to access their GP, their specialist, and other medical services such as pathology and imaging. This has been done every day since Medicare was established by the Hawke government. This has helped Australians, particularly those with access difficulties, from lower socio-economic backgrounds or with chronic health problems, get access to some of the very best health care in the world. It was amazing when I started my practice in 1984. I saw many children with disabilities who had not previously been able to access specialist care, and it was a real game changer. It was something that was really important to the economic health as well as the physical health of the country, something that great Labor leaders like Hawke, Keating and Whitlam understood only too well.</para>
<para>Despite the proposed ease of the system, there were often complexities that still needed to be ironed out. This amendment seeks in large part to try and overcome some of the difficulties in billing practices through Medicare and the health system, particularly the private health system, where now we can get bundling of item numbers and so rebates can be paid directly to the practitioners in things like radiotherapy, radiology and pathology without separate bills having to be assessed and patients often being made to pay upfront and then having to try to get the rebate back into their own accounts later. So it's made things much easier for the patients, with less paperwork for the patients and also less paperwork for the practitioners.</para>
<para>It also enables a record to be kept of transactions. As we know, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of medical interactions every day in our system in Australia. These can now be tracked easily. Trends can be looked at. Data can be looked at. People can be reassured that they won't have big upfront costs when they first go and see a practitioner. We know that some of the costs involved for some of these transactions, including things like radiotherapy and some of the newer oncology treatments, can measure in the thousands of dollars. For patients to find that upfront is often very difficult. This will improve the ease of accessing these complex treatments, these modern 21st century treatments, and will take a lot of stress off interactions with health professionals. For the providers, it will also enable them to keep better track of the payment system and of their rebates and obviate the need for long hours spent by people looking at and tracking rebates. So it's a really important change.</para>
<para>In addition, this will greatly address the problem of Medicare fraud in the healthcare system. It happens. Medicare fraud does occur but only at a relatively small amount compared to the overall cost of the system. Nevertheless, it's an issue that all practitioners are aware of and believe should be addressed. It's important. Health practitioners must be seen to be above board and to be practising to the best of their ability in providing quality health care to all Australians. Many of my colleagues in all sections of medicine, including those in general practice, do their best to provide high-quality care and abide by the rules and regulations of the system. For those who don't do that, it's important that we track them and that we make sure they are held to account. Unfortunately, there are those who seek to deceive and defraud the system, which harms not only taxpayers and patients but also the healthcare profession and confidence in our healthcare system. Our government is very well aware of these issues and, following on from our Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill, which we passed in December 2022, we're working very hard to restore integrity and compliance for both the healthcare system and those who work within it.</para>
<para>As practitioners, we now deal with very large sums of money through our practices. I will just preface that by saying I no longer receive Medicare rebates, but I do still provide a clinical practice at our local hospital for which I do not charge the Medicare system or our public hospital system or the patients. But I am well aware of and talking to my colleagues about the fact that practice costs are increasing—as are Medicare rebates, thanks to this government's real active intervention in this space. It is important to keep track of cash flows. It is important to make sure that people are adequately compensated for the work that they do. This system will help keep track of the costs and the income of all these practices.</para>
<para>Some specialist practitioners have practices generating bills of millions of dollars every year. That sounds like a lot, but it's spread between a number of practitioners, and it's in the more complex treatment modalities that I've already spoken about, such as radiotherapy, which is a commonly used treatment for some of the major cancers of older age, such as prostate cancer and breast cancer. These bills can run to many thousands of dollars for each patient over a number of weeks. This system will improve compliance in this area. The patients, as I've said, no longer have to pay the upfront cost. The practices don't have to send separate bills, and they can keep track of the payment system—the same as people who are receiving some of the complex treatments for chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It enables them and the system to have a seamless way of paying the practitioners and tracking treatments. So it's a really important advance and yet another way that this government is doing what it can to make sure our health system remains the best in the world.</para>
<para>I'm proud of it, and I know all my colleagues that work in our health system are very proud of it, but we understand the stresses. We understand that it's a system that was developed many years ago and needs regular updates. That is something that was lost on the coalition government. It's important, of course, that public funds are providing this health insurance system. It needs to be seen as being dealt with properly and that people are earning their incomes in an appropriate manner and still providing high-quality care around the country. I'm very glad that this minister has brought the bill to the parliament. As I said, we've come a long way from the click clack of swiping our Medicare cards and the cheques that used to come intermittently from Medicare to all our practices, and I'm very glad about that. But it's a big change. It's something that should have happened some time ago, and the minister is to be congratulated for that. Medicare is too important to let the system slowly degrade, which was happening under the Liberal-National government. We are bolstering this integral institution to Australia's wellbeing—not only our health wellbeing but our economic wellbeing.</para>
<para>Outside of this building, stakeholders overwhelmingly support our efforts, from the AMA to the private health insurance industry to the private hospital system to general practitioners to specialists. Everyone I've spoken to applauds these advances in our healthcare system done by a Labor government that understands the importance of a universal healthcare system, such as Medicare, understands the importance of our health system and understands the importance of making sure that access to health care is equitable around the country. There's still a lot to do, particularly in some of the outer metropolitan areas and particularly in some of the National Party electorates, where health care has been neglected for a long, long time. It is important that we make sure that access is equitable, and these changes to Medicare will help do that.</para>
<para>There are new things happening in our medical system. Things like telehealth are becoming integral to the system. There's more complex care coming for a range of disorders, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease. It's all changing, and it's changing rapidly. We have to have a system that keeps up with this. The present health minister, Mark Butler, is doing his very best to make sure our health system continues to be one of the best in the world. I applaud what the minister is doing. There is more to come. I'm thankful that our government seeks input from all the stakeholders. It's great to see that we have general agreement that what we are doing is certainly the right thing. I applaud the minister. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to better health outcomes for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When you sit in the chamber of the House of Representatives in the federal parliament and listen to Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, you learn things. I have the utmost respect for the member for Macarthur and certainly thank him for what he has done in his local community as far as health outcomes are concerned. I went on a trip with the good doctor to Papua New Guinea, where we looked at Pacific global health initiatives, and I know that the follow-up we did after that trip was beneficial to one of our closest friends and allies. In fact, Dr Mike is so good he should be the health minister. If he were, I would probably get more signed correspondence from him than I do from the current health minister, the member for Hindmarsh. Of the 29 reps that I've made to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, 28 have been signed by his chief of staff and one by his acting chief of staff. I know that, when I was a minister, when I got a rep from a colleague, from either side of the aisle, I followed it up in person or personally signed the correspondence back to them in most, if not all, cases.</para>
<para>But I appreciate this is a debate on the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024, and I want to take the member for Macarthur up on some of the points that he made. Whilst I agree with him on some of the points that he raised, whilst I respect him always, whilst I appreciate he has probably forgotten more about health than most of us may ever know, I want to take him up on some of the points he made about the years that we were in government. I will start with bulk-billing, which, in Minister Butler's own words, is the 'beating heart of Medicare'. But it has plummeted by 11 per cent since the last election. That is a fact. That is a truism. It has fallen from 88.5 per cent when the coalition left office in May 2022 to 77 per cent under the current health minister. That is such a shame.</para>
<para>Whilst in government, the coalition did the following. I know the member for McArthur said that they were years of dysfunction and neglect. Well, that is not true, because we provided $99.3 million for 80 additional Commonwealth supported places so more students could study medicine at rural campuses. He mentioned National Party seats. Many of those rural campuses are in National Party seats. Sixty-six million dollars was invested to make it easier and more affordable to access Medicare-funded MRI scans in regional, rural and remote Australia from 1 November 2022. That was a big step forward.</para>
<para>There was $36.2 million to establish two university departments of rural health in the South West and Goldfields regions of Western Australia, in Edith Cowan University and Curtin University. I appreciate this is a long way from my electorate of Riverina and a long way from the electorate of Parkes, the seat of my good learned friend who sits supporting me. But I've been to WA many, many times as a member of this place, and, let me tell you, remote health services and outcomes are so important. There was $14.8 million to support Charles Sturt University to deliver a rural clinical school. We were also supporting, when we lost government, the National Rural Health Student Network of rural health clubs with $2.1 million over four years.</para>
<para>This will be interest of the member for Parkes, and I know he knows this very well. An additional $33.3 million—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's fast asleep! What are you talking about?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton comes in and starts yelling already. He'll get his turn. There was an additional $33.3 million over four years towards a 10-year strategic agreement with the Royal Flying Doctor Service worth almost $1 billion. If there has been a champion of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, it is the member for Parkes. So many of those people who have fallen foul of accidents and farm incidents and needed the Royal Flying Doctor Service have been championing those services, that investment, via the member for Parkes. Certainly his efforts in western New South Wales have been second to none in making sure the right investment is in the right place. And the right investment in the right place has often been with those wonderful people from the RFDS.</para>
<para>In addition, we put $14.3 million towards: expand nursing and allied-health student training in aged care to another five locations in the Northern Territory, Victoria, New South Wales and remote Queensland; incentivise more doctors and nurses to work rurally by eliminating their HELP debts if they worked in rural towns and remote communities; and made telehealth permanent and universal, allowing timely access to health professionals no matter where they lived. That was so important in those worst years of COVID, and telehealth will never, ever—I hope—replace that personal, face-to-face consultations but, let me tell you, it was vital in those years where there wasn't face-to-face contact possible. Getting rural professionals is so difficult, and I appreciate the job that the government has to do. We need to do better and we need to do more, and I implore those regional members of government, particularly if they sit in cabinet, to do more and to be very vocal to make sure that their city friends address these rural health issues.</para>
<para>Upon my appointment as deputy prime minister in February 2018, I secured $95 million for the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network. That is making such a difference in Wagga Wagga, in Orange, in Dubbo, in Bendigo and in Mildura, because it's making sure the training is done and stays in its regional setting from start to finish. The chances are, if you have a person doing a course in a rural university, particularly medicine, if they start and finish the course in that rural setting, they are 75 per cent more likely to stay in that rural setting because they fall in love with the local community—they might fall in love with somebody in the local community, because they're at that age where they're partnering up. It makes such a difference. To go to the Wagga Wagga Biomedical Sciences Centre recently, where they did the topping-out ceremony, to see the progress made was one of my proudest moments since being elected to this place in 2010. I look forward to the opening later this year.</para>
<para>That's some of what we did in office. Although the coalition support this bill, we are very concerned—as we should be—that the government has stated the bill 'represents more progress on the government's commitment to strengthen Medicare'. It has become clear, all too sadly, that under this Albanese government Medicare has only been weakened. Labor is overseeing a primary healthcare crisis that means it has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor, and that's simply not good enough. One of the main problems with being able to see a doctor was the fact that the priority areas of distribution of GPs were changed when Labor came to power. Once upon a time, and certainly under the coalition government, those priority areas were considered regional, and in remote areas. Nowadays, Labor have changed it so that a doctor could put his or her shingle up in Newcastle, in Wollongong or in the Gold Coast and claim that priority-area accessibility to get the various incentives that government provides. What that means now is that doctors are less inclined and less likely to want to go and put their shingle up in a remote area where doctors are in short supply. And then we get that insulting comment by our Adelaide minister for health, who says that in a regional centre—or anywhere, for that matter—if you can't get a doctor who is happy to bulk-bill, put the phone down, ring the next doctor and see if they will. That might be all well and good in the leafy suburbs of Adelaide, but I'll tell you what: when you're out in regional Australia, it's not that easy to get a doctor first up, let alone one who will bulk-bill. Certainly, if you get a doctor and get an appointment, you're not going to then quibble about being bulk-billed—you're happy to get that appointment. You can have choice, and you can be fussy if you want, in a metropolitan setting, but you don't have that choice and you can't be that fussy in a regional area where you're lucky to actually have a doctor.</para>
<para>We know how much pharmacists—certainly regional pharmacists—were demonised by this Labor government, by this Labor health minister, who refused to listen to their complaints about 60-day dispensing until they came and sat in the gallery in their white coats and complained bitterly about the lack of funding they were going to receive from this federal government. Yes, of course patients always come first, are always the most important, and chemists realise that and acknowledge it. But when we have 324 country towns in Australia where the only health professional in the vicinity is the pharmacist—they don't have a doctor to speak of—then those pharmacists should be listened to. Thankfully, the minister was dragged kicking and screaming to the Expenditure Review Committee table and finally did something, when he signed the latest pharmacists accord, to make sure that pharmacists were looked after. But it took the Nationals to bring that home. It took the Nationals to make sure that was even considered by this city-centric government.</para>
<para>As I've said, the bulk-billing rates are nothing short of disgraceful. There is a healthcare organisation called Cleanbill. Alarmingly, Cleanbill did what was called their <inline font-style="italic">Blue report</inline>, an electorate breakdown, which showed that the statistics are completely at odds with what health minister Butler and the Labor government have been trying to peddle—the nonsense that they've been putting out there. Cleanbill's report found that nearly 87 per cent of electorates saw a decline in bulk-billing at general practitioner clinics over the course of 2023. I'm sure the figures aren't any better this year, and we're already into June. All the while, Labor has been pretending that nothing is wrong. We know it is. Those Labor members who are in regional electorates, whilst often they come in here and just read the talking points that have been given to them, know that in their communities there are real issues about accessing a doctor. Whilst this amendment bill is supported, there are real and widening cracks in the health system that are not being addressed by this Labor government.</para>
<para>As I say, bulk-billing has been collapsing since Labor came to office. I appreciate that the bill's amendments will remove some of the current rigid paperwork requirements, to allow for more streamlined processing of MBS bulk-billing claims, particularly for telehealth consults. That's good. Well done! We support those sorts of things. Anything that can cut through bureaucracy and paperwork is to be commended. It will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden for healthcare providers who provide bulk-billed services, for private health insurers and for approved billing agents. Great! But when there are fewer and fewer bulk-billing providers then that is an issue, a major issue. This will ensure that the payment of Medicare benefits is aligned with modern practice, reducing the burden for health professionals. If that goes some way to encouraging people to put their shingle up in regional or remote Australia, that's great. But I doubt it will, because of all the issues that I addressed earlier.</para>
<para>We support these sensible amendments; they'll streamline processes for healthcare providers and private health insurers. But it is so hard. I have a situation in the north of my electorate, at Parkes, where the mayor, Neil Westcott, tells me they haven't had a birth in the town in five years. I appreciate that this isn't just a federal responsibility and that state public hospital issues come into play. But Parkes is a town of 12,000 people, and Parkes deserves better. I've certainly written to the health minister. I've written to the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health, Emma McBride, whom I also have a great amount of respect for. She comes to this place as a pharmacist. What we want to see is better and more health services for our regional communities, certainly in a town the size of Parkes. When a town the size of Parkes, which has 12,000 people, doesn't have obstetrics and maternity services, there's something really wrong. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024. I say the name of the bill for those who were listening to the member for Riverina. They might not have actually realised what the legislation was about. It was a lovely presentation of material by the member for Riverina. He's got a fine turn of phrase. He did occasionally drift into the legislation, but he then saved himself and moved away from it.</para>
<para>Medicare is a proud Australian institution. Indeed, it is a proud Labor innovation. Medicare is one of the legacies of Gough Whitlam, although back then it was originally called Medibank. It was introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in 1975. It was a big year, and I seem to recall something bad for democracy happened around 11 November that year. Sadly, Medibank was short lived. The Fraser government, after taking office in November 1975 and under the guidance of Treasurer John Howard, introduced a series of modifications, which resulted in Medibank being dismantled by 1981. Then, in 1984, Medicare was reintroduced by Bob Hawkes's magnificent reforming government. We're now 40 years on, and this nation's universal public health scheme is going strong. Whether you're young or old, from the bush or from the city, Medicare works for you. In fact, that one Labor policy has done more for people in the bush than every single National Party MP and senator ever elected combined. I'm sure the member for Riverina would agree with that!</para>
<para>Medicare guarantees all Australians access to a wide range of health and hospital services at low or no cost. For the past 40 years, Medicare has ensured that the quality of health care Australians receive has nothing to do with where they live or how much they earn. Medicare allows all Australians to get the medical treatment they need, regardless of their circumstances in life. It is their Medicare card that counts, not their credit card. Labor has always defended and strengthened Medicare when we're in office. We do that despite the long history of coalition governments trying to run it down. I'm sure, if you're of a certain age, you will remember John Howard's promise to Australians that he would not touch Medicare. Then, when elected in 1996, he cut funding to Medicare, raised the safety net threshold and scared Australians into taking up private health insurance.</para>
<para>I remember opposition leader Tony Abbott campaigning when he promised no cuts to Medicare. Remember that campaign in 2013? That 2013 election is quite a difficult memory for me. He also promised me a $500 cut to my power bill. When is that coming? But I digress. During the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison shemozzle, the coalition froze the Medicare rebate, tried to introduce a GP tax three times and planned to privatise the Medicare payment system. That was under the nation's worst-ever health minister, who now leads the opposition. The Labor Party's fundamental belief is that every Australian deserves access to universal, prompt and world-class health care. This is an enduring value and one that all party members hold dear.</para>
<para>Since coming to government, Prime Minister Albanese and Minster Butler have prioritised measures to help GPs and health professionals provide the medical care needed by Australians. We're committed to strengthening Medicare and making it fit for purpose. That's what I'm here to talk about today. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to modernise the assignment of the Medicare benefits for bulk-billed and simplified billing services. Labor wants to take all possible measures to make it easier for Australians to be bulk-billed and easier for Australians to access the health services they need. We've worked hard to stop the slide of bulk-billing. I know how crucial bulk-billing is for those doing it tough at the moment and for those with health concerns. Last year, Labor's record $3.5 billion investment in bulk-billing led to an increase in the practice in every state and every territory. I'm sure the member for Riverina can take comfort from that. Now we want to make it easier for patients to be bulk-billed.</para>
<para>In 2023, we tripled the bulk-billing incentive, and now, in 2024, we're making it easier for medical professionals to bulk-bill their patients. The reforms concern the process of assignment of benefits. In this process, a patient assigns their Medicare benefit to a healthcare provider or to their health insurer when they have a no-gap arrangement. The Medicare benefit is then paid directly to the provider or insurer. The patient does not need to pay for the service and then be reimbursed, which we would all agree is more simple and more efficient. However, getting to this point is not. The act currently specifies that the provider or insurer and the patient sign an agreement to assign the benefit. The provider must keep a record of the documentation. As the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">GPs have long complained of an overly complex and onerous paperwork process that is inefficient and holds back productivity.</para></quote>
<para>To be continued.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Moreton will be able to speak in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brewarrina</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My admiration for the community of Brewarrina and the leadership shown by Brewarrina Shire Council under the leadership of Mayor Vivian Slack-Smith is well known. Six of the nine councillors of Brewarrina Shire Council are local Indigenous people, and 75 per cent of their workforce is Indigenous, including the CEO, David Kirby. They are a progressive council. They show great leadership. Last week they decided, under a notice of motion from Councillor Gordon, that they would no longer work with the local community working party or the Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly.</para>
<para>The community working party, an unelected organisation, has been bullying, intimidating and harassing the members of Brewarrina for a long time. The council has said that enough is enough. They are a positive council. They are looking forward. They are sick of the disruptive behaviour of the working party.</para>
<para>I would welcome anyone going to Brewarrina, the home of the fish traps, one of the oldest man-made structures on earth. The leadership in that community, an isolated community with a small population, is punching way above its weight when it comes to a community inclusion, outcomes for the community and local economic benefit. I support their decision.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I entered parliament, I worked most of my life for the minimum wage at various Woolworths stores in the south-east suburbs of Melbourne. I know how tough it can be to make ends meet, and that's why I am proud to stand here today as a part of the Albanese Labor government. Starting 1 July, the minimum wage will rise to $24 per hour, benefiting around 2.6 million Australian workers. This 3.75 per cent increase means a full-time minimum-wage worker will see their weekly earnings rise to $913.91. This will provide much-needed relief for workers on the minimum wage who are dealing with the brunt of the cost-of-living pressures.</para>
<para>Our government has consistently fought for fair wages for all workers to ensure workers can live with dignity and security. In contrast, the previous Liberal-National government never argued for a real wage increase for lower paid workers. This wage increase is a testament to what happens when we have a government that genuinely advocates for its workers. It is a significant win for Australian workers and a positive step towards a fairer and more equitable society.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ogilvie, Mr Joshua Mark</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Josh Ogilvie: son to Angela and Doug, father to Chase, brother to Matt and Liam—a soldier, an athlete and a person I call a brother. I was heartbroken to hear of your passing, mate. You will be forever in all of our hearts, throughout the whole of the Defence Force but, most importantly, throughout your family in the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment.</para>
<para>Josh, or Yogi as we know him, was a man mountain—huge. I would have said he was seven foot, but most likely he was probably only six foot three or four. There was no fat on him. He was just an amazing human being, and any time there was an issue, anytime someone was going through a hard time, Josh would be on the phone. He mentored so many. He saved so many from their demons and their wars within.</para>
<para>This Friday we'll be burying you. We'll be saying goodbye. It feels like only yesterday we were on the phone and, whilst we've contracted together around the world, that was over in Dubai, working, saving and providing for his family. He'll be forever missed. We love you, mate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robertson Electorate: JG's Uniforms</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australian small businesses are the backbone of our communities, employing hundreds of thousands of Australians across our country. There are thousands of outstanding local businesses in my community on the Central Coast who provide exceptional goods and services with brilliant customer service. One such small business that is the epitome of this description is JG's Uniforms in Kincumber.</para>
<para>Janelle Graham began JG's Uniforms in 2007. It produces Australian-made high-quality skirts, dresses, tunics and skorts on the Central Coast. JG's Uniforms manufactures uniforms for Central Coast based primary and high schools.</para>
<para>It is important that as a community we support Australian-made goods and services which support sustainable Australian jobs. I am pleased to see a focus on Australian-made by the federal Labor government. COVID-19 showed us the importance of having the capacity to produce essential items in Australia and not to have to rely on other countries for our critical supply chains. We do not want to be a country that is at the end of the supply chain again.</para>
<para>I say to Janelle and to JG's Uniforms in Kincumber: keep up your marvellous and fantastic work. Our Central Coast community back our small businesses and we support Australian-made goods and services.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East, International Criminal Court</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The humanitarian disaster that we're witnessing in Gaza is deeply disturbing. The sheer scale of the horror is hard to fathom. It seems unimaginable there could be so much suffering, but there is, and we're watching it unfold in real time.</para>
<para>There's no doubt this conflict was caused by the Hamas terrorist attack against Israeli civilians and is perpetuated by the ongoing detention of hostages, but the military response from the Netanyahu government has gone too far, with more than 35,000 people now dead, including more than a hundred journalists and more than 200 aid workers.</para>
<para>On 20 May the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced he was seeking arrest warrants for two Israeli leaders and three Hamas leaders. In Australia this was immediately politicised, with the coalition threatening to cut ties with the ICC, undermining Australia's longstanding bipartisan commitment to international humanitarian law. Australia has led efforts to build an effective international criminal justice system to hold to account those responsible for grave offences against humanity. We cannot interfere with this system.</para>
<para>On the other side, the Greens keep proposing motions that make no mention of the role of Hamas or the hostages in order to wedge the government. Instead of using this traumatic situation for domestic political point scoring, we in this House must be united in using Australia's voice to hold all parties to account and to continue to call for a ceasefire.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory: Arts and Culture</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We Territorians are feeling a bit like, to quote Cold Chisel, 'That we're standing on the outside looking in. We're standing on the outside looking in.' And you ask why? It is because, unfortunately, Darwin is not part of Cold Chisel's big 50 national tour, celebrating 50 years of that great band.</para>
<para>Fifty years ago, when Darwin was hit by Cyclone Tracy, the Chisels had just decided on Cold Chisel as their name. In 1978 they put out their first album, and we also achieved self-government in the Northern Territory. When they first came to play in Darwin in 1980, it was a massive occasion. They're a great band.</para>
<para>As we commemorate 50 years since Cyclone Tracy, we would love Cold Chisel to make their way up the track—up the Stuart Highway from Adelaide—at the end of November and play for us to help us to reflect and remember Cyclone Tracy and all the good times we've had with the Chisels in the Territory. There'll be no need for a big top tent—we have the air conditioned Darwin Convention Centre, and rather than breakfast at Sweethearts, I'll take them to see Sweetheart the croc and we'll go to the ski club. The poincianas will be in full bloom—the flame trees that are so famous and iconic in the Northern Territory. Territorians will love the Chisels forever now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians should have the freedom to choose how they will pay for what they buy with their hard earned dollars. It's not a choice that should be made for them by big banks or financial institutions. That's why this week I introduced the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024. The bill would preserve the use of the prawn, blue swimmer, lobster, pineapple and Granny Smith in our national economy, legislating that businesses must accept cash payments for transactions not exceeding $10,000. Shockingly, there is currently no legal requirement for notes or coins to be accepted for transactions in Australia. If a business gives you notice that it won't accept cash, it doesn't have to.</para>
<para>For many people in my electorate of Calare, and across this great country, cash is still king. A lot of folk, including senior Australians, find managing accounts and cards online to be stressful and confusing. Cash is often used in rural areas by people who don't have ready access to banking services or reliable internet access. Cash transactions are unaffected by digital failures, making them vital during outages or disasters—not to mention that using cards often means facing additional fees and charges, giving up your privacy and dealing with the risk of fraud.</para>
<para>My bill would save meat raffles at the pub, it would save two-up on Anzac Day and it would keep the tooth fairy in a job! Moreover, if— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is World Environment Day, and the Albanese Labor government's budget gives reasons to celebrate. Funding for the environment is crucial for safeguarding our planet's health and sustainability. By prioritising clean energy technologies and green infrastructure projects, we can create jobs, stimulate innovation and transition towards a more sustainable future.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is unlocking more than $65 billion of investment in renewable capacity by 2030. We are helping Australians to benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy by investing over $27 million to integrate consumer energy resources, like batteries and solar, into the grid. The new vehicle efficiency standard will save Australians around $95 billion at the bowser by 2050 and will reduce transport emissions.</para>
<para>Our government is working closely with trading partners to identify opportunities to drive greater supply chain transparency and better market recognition of high environmental, social and government standards in the critical minerals sector. This budget continues investment to support emissions reduction in the agricultural land sector. This budget provides $174.6 million for the National Water Grid Fund to deliver new water infrastructure projects that will enhance water security and boost agricultural production. The Albanese Labor government's budget reflects our commitment to preserving the planet for future generations and to the legacy that we leave behind.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digital Identity</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They've started: the digital ID issues. In Queensland, with the digital drivers licence, I've just had R&R Hire Services give me a quick call to tell me about the impact it's having on their business. Of course, digital drivers licences are being copied. It is fraudulent copies. Now, on top of the Labor-inflicted cost-of-living crisis they're struggling with, they have to pay $5.50 to an outside company to get these licences checked to see if they're legitimate—yet another cost. It doesn't sound like much, but they do, on average, 600 a week. That's $33,000 a year extra which they now have to spend out of their bottom line.</para>
<para>For those who have never been in a small business, the challenge is that, once you've paid your rent, electricity and all the other expenses, there's one controllable cost you have left, and that's wages. You control that by rostering people off; you don't give them as many hours. What will happen now is that they'll have to cut back on staff, which will affect their customer service, or they'll have to put their prices up. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation.</para>
<para>The digital ID is a bad idea. It's been a bad idea from the start. Let's get it out of here. If those opposite are going to insist on people using it, the government should have to pay for it. Better still, just bin it altogether.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Pharmacy Agreement</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The signing of the eighth community pharmacy agreement is a win for patients, who will benefit from cheaper medicines, and the sector, which will provide more pharmacy services. Community pharmacies in my electorate did the heavy lifting during the pandemic and worked hard to provide health care to the residents of Bean.</para>
<para>Yesterday, along with the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the assistant minister for mental health, I visited the award-winning Capital Chemist Southlands to discuss what the eighth CPA means for them. This new agreement will support them to ensure that residents of Bean continue to get cheaper medicines while, at the same time, support our community pharmacies to do the critical work they do. This new agreement will freeze medicine co-payments for patients for up to five years and increase the number of free medicine Webster-paks that pharmacies can deliver by 50 per cent, paid for by the Commonwealth. This new agreement will give community pharmacies more financial certainty and will support a sustainable pharmacy network across Australia. The Albanese government was determined to deliver an agreement that was good for patients and good for community pharmacy, and this week that is what we delivered.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bonner Electorate: Volunteers, StandbyU Foundation</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Did you know that over five million Australians are volunteers? That's five million individuals who have decided to generously commit their time and effort to serving others and making our community a better place. In my electorate of Bonner, we have hundreds of volunteer organisations. To anyone who sacrifices their own time to improve the lives of others, I say thank you. From MacKenzie Bushcare to our Bayside's Coast Guard, your generosity and commitment is valued and appreciated. I'm proud to have supported many of our local groups by providing funding through the Volunteer Grants program.</para>
<para>Of the many outstanding Bonner volunteer organisations, I'd like to highlight one mission in particular, StandbyU Foundation. StandbyU is a not-for-profit that provides unique access points for people seeking refuge from domestic violence, abuse or loneliness. At their Westfield Helensvale location, the team has provided help for over 3,000 vulnerable people in just three years. I'm proud to have been able to partner with Chris and Michelle and the team at StandbyU to help them set up a shopfront in the heart of Westfield Mount Gravatt. Named Magnolia Place, the shopfront will be an easily accessible place for individuals or families to find safety and support, whatever their circumstances. Domestic violence is never okay, which is why I applaud StandbyU for their commitment to stop this scourge on a society. Again, to all the volunteers in in Bonner: thank you very much.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Blair Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government is delivering in the budget key funding for vital road infrastructure projects in my electorate of Blair, in Ipswich. In the budget, the government is providing $134.5 million for the Warrego Highway-Mount Crosby Road interchange upgrade and $42.5 million to fix the Bremer River Bridge. The Warrego Highway is one of Queensland's main freight corridors, while the Mount Crosby Road interchange is a major bottleneck during peak hour for commuters and a notorious crash site. The budget backs in both projects with real money and is supported at every level of government.</para>
<para>Following community consultation on the Mount Crosby Road interchange, the preferred design includes a new interchange, a bridge over the Warrego Highway, improved access to Karalee and an alternative route to relieve pressure on existing roundabouts and off-ramps. We're investing $134.5 million in this upgrade. It's being matched by the Queensland Labor government.</para>
<para>We're also investing $42.5 million towards critical rehabilitation and strengthening works for the Bremer River Bridge to help prolong the life of the structure, matching the Queensland government commitment. The Bremer River Bridge is a vital connection along the Warrego Highway, and it needs to be fixed. It was built just after World War II, with steel that wouldn't satisfy today's safety standards. This is absolutely vital infrastructure funding.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manders, Mr Peter</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Peter Manders, a stalwart of the Liberal Party, a servant of our community and, most importantly, a great friend. Peter was passionate about our community, particularly in the Wandin area. He served as President of the Wandin Rotary and later became a life member. He served at his kids' school, Wandin Yallock Primary School, on the Parents and Friends Committee, as well as serving at Mont De Lancey Homestead and the Wandin Silvan Field Days. Peter, along with his wife, Annemarie, operated a local farm and tourism business, Warratina Lavender Farm, in Wandin.</para>
<para>Peter was also one of the most beloved and hardworking party members in the Liberal Party. I was fortunate to serve with him in many roles on executive and party committees. Peter supported me from day one when I decided to run for Casey and made an enormous contribution over the years to keeping Casey in Liberal hands. As a new MP, I will miss his friendship, his counsel and his frank advice. On behalf of my wife, Rachel, and myself, I send our love, thoughts and prayers to Peter's loving wife, Annemarie, and his children, Chris and Tim. Rest in peace, Peter. You will be missed by us all. Vale, Peter Manders.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gambling</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm used to seeing and treating a broad array of illnesses that harm our community. Most can be managed by treatment and prevention. However, there's a major disease that's ravaging our country, and it is causing mental, emotional and financial harm to young people and families. This disease is gambling addiction. This disease targets all and does not discriminate, with tragic consequences. Its victims, who are often young men, are lured to commit their finances and time in pursuit of an unattainable and unrealistic treasure.</para>
<para>This morning, the member for Mayo and the member for Clark hosted an important and highly emotional briefing regarding the need for urgent reform to Australia's gambling industry. We heard from Ellie and her father, Dave, who spoke about losing their brother and son who tragically took his own life following the stress and pressure of his gambling addiction. They spoke of how, prior to taking his life, he tried so hard to disconnect from this torturous industry, but the gambling accounts didn't help him. They targeted him even more with more advertising and promotion. This is disgraceful.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Macarthur, in the six months to December 2023, a profit of over $67 million from poker machines was given to these industries. This doesn't take into consideration the online gambling platforms and what they are doing. This is disgraceful and has to stop.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSactive Million Moves Challenge</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Australia, 75 per cent of adults between 18 and 64 do not meet the minimum requirements for a healthy level of physical activity and muscle strengthening. To combat this trend, four electorates went head-to-head in the inaugural AUSactive Million Moves challenge between 1 May and 21 May.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, yes?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Listen to this, member for Fenner. Alongside the member for Wide Bay, who was a champion, the member for Fairfax and the member for Longman, I encouraged the people of Fisher—and people in their electorates—to get out and get active. And they did! Fisher locals led the way, taking out the award for the most active electorate.</para>
<para>A huge thank you to Jetts in Bokarina, Nutrition Warehouse, LSKD, LiFT Strength and Conditioning, Club Pilates in Sippy Downs, Beerwah Golf Club, Caloundra Indoor Stadium, Rackley Swimming Kawana, Caloundra Basketball, NRG Yoga, UBX Caloundra, The Station and so many others for your support. We are hoping to roll this program out to the 151 electorates next year. This is a modern day Life Be In It using tech, and I want to encourage all my parliamentary colleagues next year to keep an eye out for it, because it's really good for us and good for our electorates. It is good for our people to get active. We can't let the member for Fenner win it, as he won the Fit for Office championship. Keep an eye out for it, and let's get into it next year.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Spence Electorate: Clothing and Footwear Industry</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Labor government is backing manufacturing and growth through a Future Made in Australia. One iconic brand, which I am proud to have operating in my electorate of Spence, is striving with this momentum. RM Williams, a familiar name in this building and definitely across Australia and the world, recently opened a new dedicated manufacturing line for women's boots. I had the pleasure of attending its official launch with RM Williams co-owner Dr Nicola Forrest AO of Tattarang at the famed RM Williams workshop in Salisbury.</para>
<para>Just 10 minutes from my electorate office, the new line alone has created 70 local manufacturing jobs and is part of a 60,000 square metre expansion of RM Williams's manufacturing space. Importantly still, this trailblazing initiative is empowering women to enter traditionally male dominated industries, crafting boots for women that are designed by women and are now being made by women on the new line. It means that doors are being opened for people like Chloe, a 23-year-old maker at the Salisbury workshop, who will soon become the company's first ever female mastercraft person. Chloe is part of RM Williams's growing local workforce, which has increased by a third since 2020.</para>
<para>I'm proud to see meaningful employment for those in our community to the benefit of our community. That is what a Future Made in Australia is all about—securing economic production in Australia for the good of all Australians. To Chloe, keep up the great work!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hughes Electorate: Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about HammondCare at Hammondville in my electorate. HammondCare started caring for elderly Australians on this site 90 years ago. Today it features five care homes operated by staff with global, industry led expertise in dementia and palliative care. We are living in a world where we are living for longer but, sadly, many more Australians are being diagnosed with dementia. The site at Hammondville is already home to the largest number of dementia-specific care beds in Australia. It has been a privilege for me to visit the Hammondville site with GM Michael Cooney on many occasions, and I particularly acknowledge and commend the staff for the personalised and compassionate care that they provide within these homes. The staff are providing homes—they're not facilities and units; they are homes—and caring for our most vulnerable.</para>
<para>Today, HammondCare announced construction of the Hammondville 3 and 4 projects, which will build an additional 90 beds in new care homes to support people living with dementia. While I am disappointed I could not be there, I wanted to use this opportunity to congratulate all of those involved in this project, from the beginning stage to delivery. A formal tree planting ceremony was held this morning by CEO Mike Baird. As this is Mike Baird's last public activity as HammondCare CEO, I take this opportunity to thank him and congratulate him for his years of service to HammondCare.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Discrimination</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We must be able to have difficult conversations about the Middle East and disagree respectfully. For the past eight months, my community has been doxxed, vilified, ostracised and harassed. Unfortunately, this has been encouraged by the Australian Greens. The state member for Newtown said the Jewish community's tentacles are infiltrating ethnic spaces. The state member for Brunswick posted a video online of the member for Fraser being physically assaulted on the way into the Labor conference. The Greens candidate for Wills called people to stay radical and get more radical. The member for Griffith has accused the Australian Labor Party of being responsible for the heartbreaking loss of innocent lives on the other side of the world.</para>
<para>My own staff have been harassed for eight months. People on the other end of the line are peddling misinformation and lies propagated by the Greens. And now it's escalating with their silent support. Staff members have been injured, offices have been vandalised and MPs are harassed while doing their jobs. Constituents have been unable to access the help of government services. This is not peaceful. You cannot pretend to be for peace when inciting violence here in Australia. The words we use in this place as leaders matter. The pain people feel about the Middle East should be acknowledged but not weaponised. We need to be able to disagree respectfully, and we all must act responsibly as leaders in this place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the Olympics almost upon us, I think team Albanese are a real medal chance in gymnastics—perhaps the floor routine, the high bars or even the ropes. The minister for immigration would star with his direction 99 double backflip, first with his amendment of direction 99 to detain more criminals and sex offenders, and second with the vanishing drones story. The minister for infrastructure backflipped on the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, softening her landing to reduce the impact on car buyers and Australian dealers alike. The minister for Climate Change and Energy has backflipped on the future role of gas. Yesterday we saw an amazing assisted backflip, with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs saying that Labor will recruit ADF personnel from any country and then the Minister for Defence saying: 'No, no, no. It's New Zealand first, and then Five Eyes.' The minister for agriculture backflipped on the need for an inquiry into the live sheep export phase-out. The Minister for Communications backflipped on age verification for social media. Australia needs a winning team with a real skill and commitment not for backflips but for strong leadership. A change of government cannot come soon enough.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'm sharing an email I received from a local, Petre. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Recently I saw on the TV news how the current leader of the opposition said that he wants to introduce nuclear power stations in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>Petre says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It made me really upset (I am 70 years old), because I lost my dear mother to leukaemia in the northern summer of 1966 as a result of a nuclear accident which happened in 1957 in the then USSR.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a boy I went to visit my mother in hospital and I saw over 40 women who had the same disease as my mother. The leader of the opposition should go and visit the abandoned human habitation close to Fukushima in Japan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Also he can go to Ukraine and see who lives anymore at Chernobyl.</para></quote>
<para>My constituent says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I agree with our Government to introduce solar power and wind generated electricity, as in the long run it would be cheaper than nuclear power, and people won't be forced to leave their place to go somewhere else in case of nuclear accident.</para></quote>
<para>He asks:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Please present my worries to the Australian Parliament about the Opposition plans to destroy my grandchildren's future.</para></quote>
<para>Petre, I have done so.</para>
<para>Of course, my constituent is not alone. The Leader of the Opposition's plans for nuclear are ridiculously expensive, unachievable and unwanted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. The latest economic data confirms that Australia is in an entrenched GDP per capita recession with five consecutive quarters of negative growth. This is the slowest GDP growth since 1991 outside the pandemic. At the same time, living standards have collapsed by 7.8 per cent under Labor. Our inflation remains amongst the highest and most persistent in the developed world. Why are Australians paying the price for this government's incompetence and mismanagement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity from the shadow Treasurer to talk about today's national accounts, because what today's national accounts show now beyond any doubt is that the economic strategy in the budget was exactly right for the combination of challenges that we confront together. If we had taken the advice of those opposite, talking about $315 billion dollars, too much spending and all the rest of the rubbish that they peddle, that would have been diabolical for an economy which was already weak and for people who were already under pressure.</para>
<para>When it comes to the per capita measures that the opposition member refers to, it is not unprecedented for the economy to go backwards in per capita terms. We know that because it happened on their watch as well. It's not uncommon around the world to see that measure go backwards. We've seen that in a number of countries over the last couple of years. So, if he wants to ask about living standards, he should recognise that, when we came to office, real wages, for example, were falling by 3.4 per cent, and now real wages are growing again because of the efforts of this government to give people the kind of cost-of-living relief and growing wages that they need and deserve when the economy is soft and when people are under pressure.</para>
<para>You get a lot of free advice when you're putting budgets together. Some of it turns out to be right; some of it turns out to be wrong. Almost everything that those opposite have said about the economy and the budget has turned out to be wrong, and that shouldn't surprise us, because they are the same characters that left behind massive deficits, a huge amount of debt, inflation almost double what it is now, real wages falling and real spending growth higher than it is now. That's why nobody takes the shadow treasurer especially seriously. If he wants to ask lots of questions about the national accounts and the budget, I'd say that would be a very good thing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>President of Nauru</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the Prime Minister for our guests.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to acknowledge and warmly welcome His Excellency the President of Nauru and his delegation into our chamber today. It is an honour to have you, President Adeang. I look forward to our discussion this afternoon about how we can further enhance the relationship between Australia and Nauru. We do have a special bond and an enduring partnership. This afternoon we'll have discussions about how we can work together to further our mutual prosperity and work together, as well, as members in the Pacific Islands Forum, building that cooperation amongst members of the Pacific family.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I join with the Prime Minister in extending a very warm welcome to our dear friend David Adeang. President, welcome. I first met David about 20 years ago. He's aged much better than I have, I might say! Mr President, to you and to the people of Nauru: you are great friends, dear friends, of Australia. We have worked together on many issues over a long period of time, and at this point in history our two countries need to be as close together as we've ever been. I know that, under your leadership, we'll be able to facilitate that outcome. I also know that you're an AFL supporter, but I hope tonight you'll be able to extend good support to the Maroons in the State of Origin. You're most welcome and thank you very much for your friendship.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the House, Your Excellency, and also to the Hon. Jesse Jeremiah MP and to Your Excellency Mrs Camilla Solomon, the High Commissioner of the Republic of Nauru, a warm welcome on behalf of all members of parliament.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What do today's national accounts tell us about the economy and the Albanese Labor government's approach in the budget? What are the alternatives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge and thank the member for Reid for her work to ensure that everyone, every taxpayer in her electorate, gets a tax cut on 1 July and every household gets energy bill relief as well.</para>
<para>Today's national accounts did confirm that growth in our economy was flat in the first three months of the year. It barely grew in the March quarter—just 0.1 per cent and 1.1 per cent through the year—but any growth in these circumstances is welcome. Over the past year around three-quarters of OECD economies have recorded a negative quarter, but Australia hasn't. The numbers came in broadly as the market expected, perhaps a little bit weaker. Certainly, we were expecting very soft conditions at the start of the year, and that's what we see in these numbers.</para>
<para>As I said before, there's lots of commentary about the budget settings. Some of it's objective, some of it's partisan, some of it's right and some of it is now clearly and embarrassingly wrong. Today's numbers make it really clear that to slash and burn, as those opposite and others called for, would have been diabolical in these circumstances. These national accounts show we got the budget settings right. They justify our approach to fighting inflation and repairing the budget without smashing the economy when growth was already soft and the people were already under pressure. They completely vindicate our strategy to repair the budget and to provide cost-of-living help at the same time.</para>
<para>The RBA Governor made it clear today that our two surpluses are already helping in the fight against inflation. At the same time we're supporting people with tax cuts and energy bill rebates and cheaper medicine. We're helping with rent and student debt as well. And the consumption numbers back in this approach. Household consumption was soft, growing by 0.4 per cent in the quarter and below its decade average for five quarters now. There was a big focus on essential spending at the household level growing faster than discretionary spending, which barely grew in annual terms. Household disposable income was up 1.1 per cent in the quarter and 5.2 per cent through the year, and there are more wage rises coming because of the excellent decision taken by the Fair Work Commission.</para>
<para>There are no shortages of challenges laid bare in the national accounts, but, more than just acknowledging them, we are acting on them, we are anticipating them, we are responding to them in the budget that was handed down not that long ago. And we still have advantages: moderating inflation, real wages growth, low unemployment and stronger public finances. Our responsible and methodical and measured approach to the budget is keeping pressure off inflation without crunching the economy. Today's data confirms that that responsible fiscal strategy is exactly right for this combination of challenges that we confront together in our economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. The latest national accounts showed that, compared to before the election, real disposable income has fallen by 7.8 per cent, productivity has fallen by 5.2 per cent, personal income taxes are 20 per cent higher and interest on mortgage repayments has almost tripled. Why are Australians paying the price for the Albanese Labor government's incompetence and mismanagement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some questions even the shadow Treasurer won't ask, and he's thrown this one up the back for very good reason! If they want to ask us about productivity, perhaps they could mention that their decade in office was the weakest for productivity growth in the 60 years that productivity growth data has been kept. If they want to ask about disposable incomes perhaps they could mention in passing at least that when we came to office real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent and now they're growing again. Now real wages are growing again. Perhaps somebody could explain to the honourable member up the back, with his unfortunate timing in his question about the tax take, that the tax take went down again in the national accounts this quarter and it went down in the quarter before as well.</para>
<para>They may have traded up when it came to the questioner, but the question is still incredibly, incredibly poor, and what it betrays is a total lack of understanding of the economy. You've got the shadow Treasurer wandering around saying there's $315 billion dollars too much spending in the budget, when that number includes indexation of the age pension, indexation of veterans' pension and it also includes our efforts to strengthen Medicare after a decade of attacking Medicare.</para>
<para>If they want to ask these questions about the economy, at least be upfront about the shameful record that you left behind when the member for Hume was the most embarrassing part of the most embarrassing government since Federation, and they delivered us inflation which is higher than now—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will cease interjecting immediately, and so will the member for Herbert, so I can hear from the member for Hume on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Relevance. The Treasurer wants to talk about his budget but all he wants to talk about is history.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will cease interjecting. We'll hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of direct relevance, the question specifically said: what are the alternatives? If the shadow Treasurer believes he's not an alternative, that's a matter for him.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The same guy who can't get two questions in a row on national accounts today wants to talk about relevance. I was asked a moment ago about productivity. I pointed to the fact that we want productivity growth to be stronger, but the weakest 10 years was the time that they were in office. I was asked about living standards, and I pointed out real wages are growing again, and they were falling under those opposite. I was asked by the shadow Treasurer in his scripted intervention a moment ago to talk about the budget.</para>
<para>I'd love to talk more about the budget in this place because we have delivered a cumulative improvement of $215 billion from the big Liberal deficits that we were left. We've turned two of them into Labor surpluses. And next year's big Liberal deficit we turned into a smaller deficit. So our record is there for all to see when it comes to our improvements to the budget—the fact that inflation is almost half of what we inherited, the fact that real wages are growing again, the fact that over two out of the last three quarters we've seen productivity growth go up. But it will take longer than that to turn around the record that we were left with.</para>
<para>The shadow Treasurer has the MPI shortly—ten minutes looking at himself in the camera like a budgie looking in the mirror, but without the insight. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Petrie, on a point of order.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right. The member for Hawke will cease interjecting. The member for Cunningham will cease interjecting. Order! Member's on my right, there is far too much noise. If this persists, there will be a general warning issued and no-one will be given a second chance today. The member for Petrie is entitled to raise a point of order, and I'm looking forward to hearing it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Standing order 90, reflecting on members. Two things. Firstly, the Treasurer is a serial offender reflecting on the shadow Treasurer. Secondly, the Leader of the House's intervention. Yesterday you threw two of our frontbench out for taking a point of order and then reflecting on a member. This guy gets up, takes a point of order and then—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order! The member for Lyons will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen is warned. Don't interject—trust me—while we're trying to deal with matters before the House. The member for Petrie is entitled to raise a point of order. We are trying to raise the standards, as we began to do last week with the Manager of Opposition Business on 30 May, about undignified personal attacks. So it goes to both sides of the chamber. The thing that the Treasurer said wasn't reflecting on an individual, so I'm going to remind all members that—in their questions and in their answers—the reason why people were removed yesterday was that they were abusing the standing orders to simply get up and make a statement. Out of respect for the member for Petrie, he was able to do that, but it's not a time to just get up and say how you feel or what you think. Okay? That's across the chamber. Members are entitled to raise a point of order, as the member for Hume did. I'm just going to move to the next question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homes for Australia</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing and for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government's Homes for Australia plan supporting Australians now and into the future, and what has stood in the way of this vital support?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank our member for Bennelong, our terrific member, for his support for our housing plan. Of course, I joined him just a few weeks ago to go and visit new affordable homes for key workers in his electorate at Macquarie Park, which will include more than 1,000 new social and affordable homes when it is completed. It was terrific to see some of those tenants in those homes.</para>
<para>The member for Bennelong knows how important our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan is because he knows that people are under pressure and some people are doing it particularly tough. That's why we brought down the budget that we did—a budget that focuses on support with the cost of living, puts downward pressure on inflation and sets us up for a future made in Australia. That's why we're giving every taxpayer a tax cut on 1 July—all 13 million of them. But it's also why our budget included more than $6 billion in new housing initiatives, and that's what our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan is all about. It's about fixing the mess that we inherited from those opposite when it comes to housing.</para>
<para>We know the long-term answer to housing affordability is supply, supply, supply. That's why we're working with the sector, the states and the territories to meet our ambitious national housing target of 1.2 million homes from 1 July by the end of the decade. One of the ways we're doing this, of course, is through the Housing Australia Future Fund—something those opposite voted against. Of course, they teamed up with the Greens over here to delay it by more than six months.</para>
<para>This is the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. It recently closed its first tender round, and the response has been overwhelming. As we heard yesterday, hundreds of applications to build tens of thousands of new homes was received. This response shows why our government fought so hard for the Housing Australia Future Fund. It will also support the construction sector, with more than $90 million committed in the recent budget to make sure that we have the tradies we need to build more homes for Australians.</para>
<para>Of course, these were the homes that were delayed by those opposite. They seem to think over there that we don't need new homes. The member for Deakin, over there, admitted they don't have a target for building homes. Indeed, he seems to think they have enough homes. His quote was, 'The number of homes in Australia is actually pretty good.' Maybe that's why the Leader of the Opposition didn't have one new dollar for one new home in his budget in reply. Those opposite are full of negativity. We're going to get on and build the homes that Australia needs, including through our Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>North West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, Canberra Fellowships Program, Wurun Senior Campus, Australian Federal Police: Protective Service Officer</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of mayors and deputy mayors from the North West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, a delegation from New Zealand visiting as part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Canberra Fellowships Program and a group of legal studies students from Wurun Senior Campus. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in my gallery today is Cleve, a long-term protection service officer whose work has taken him from Parliament House to Government House and the Lodge. Cleve was working at the Prime Minister's office here at the new Parliament House before this building even opened, where he continues to serve every day. Despite his long service, Cleve's never attended a question time until today. Welcome.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Prime Minister. My electorate office continues to receive hundreds of emails about the events in the Middle East. The people of Mackellar were utterly appalled by the atrocities committed by Hamas and our hearts broke for the people of Israel. Now my community is deeply distressed also by the immense human suffering in Gaza. I'm concerned that this conflict is impacting social cohesion here in Australia. Prime Minister, what is your government's message to my community about the importance of bringing the hostages home and bringing an end to this conflict?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mackellar for her serious and constructive engagement on this issue, along with so many of her colleagues. It's an approach shared by this government but one that has been tested by the actions of some members. The terrorist acts carried out by Hamas on 7 October, including the murder of young Israelis peacefully attending a music festival, were abhorrent, and this parliament unequivocally condemned them.</para>
<para>Six months ago, Australia voted for a ceasefire at the United Nations, along with 152 other countries. This government strongly supports President Biden's ceasefire proposal announced this week. Hostages must be released. Civilians must be protected. As President Biden has said a deal would 'allow the United States and our partners to begin the work to rebuild homes, schools and hospitals in Gaza to help repair communities destroyed in the chaos of war'.</para>
<para>Australia is not a participant in this conflict. We have been a consistent voice for humanitarian concerns. The point that I've made as Prime Minister, from the very outset, is that every single innocent life matters—every Israeli, every Palestinian. This government supports a two-state solution and an enduring peace. Two states: Israel and Palestine, living peacefully side by side with security and prosperity for their people.</para>
<para>Here in Australia, every one of us has a responsibility to keep our community safe. Our social cohesion is a national asset that all of us have built and all of us have a responsibility to uphold and defend. Right now, our communities are distressed. People, particularly with relatives in either Israel or the occupied territories, are distressed. We have a responsibility to not add to that distress through misinformation.</para>
<para>It is unacceptable that misinformation is being consciously and deliberately spread by some Greens senators and MPs, who have engaged in this in demonstrations outside offices and online. That includes knowingly misrepresenting motions that are moved in this parliament.</para>
<para>All of us have a responsibility to prevent conflict in the Middle East from being used as a platform for prejudice here at home. There is no place for antisemitism, prejudice of any sort or Islamophobia in our communities, at our universities, or outside electorate offices.</para>
<para>Our staff do work to provide assistance to people dealing with Medicare, social security, migration and other issues. They deserve respect, not abuse, not assault, not attacks on the office. Those things cost taxpayers money but cause, more importantly, considerable emotional distress and are anti-democratic by their very nature because they stop people participating in our democratic process and receiving services from members of the House of Representatives or of the Senate.</para>
<para>Enough is enough. The time for senators and members of parliament to continue to attend and inflame tension outside these offices must end. The fact is that denying people the right to seek that assistance achieves nothing. Tragically, it undermines the cause that protesters purport to advance.</para>
<para>I have supported justice for Palestinians my whole life and still do. It is tragic that the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people are undermined by some people engaging in activity that completely alienates the Australian public due to the nature of that. No-one should be targeted for who they are. The targeting of people because they are Jewish, because people disagree with some actions of the Netanyahu government, are completely unacceptable. Political debate must be respectful. As political leaders, we have a responsibility to lower temperature, not to fuel division. We must foster the unity and cohesion and diversity that have always been our nation's greatest strength, a strength that we all have a duty to protect.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On indulgence, the Leader of Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make it very clear to the Australian people that there is a bipartisan position in this chamber and that we speak with one voice when we condemn acts of violence, wherever they take place but particularly in our country at a period where there is heightened concern, legitimately, within many parts of the country. Last week, I was at a school in Sydney where armed guards have a permanent presence to protect young children going to school, to protect young kids going to daycare centres, not because they have done anything wrong, not because their families have done anything wrong or stand for any bad cause but because they are Jewish. That is why, and that has no place in our country whatsoever. It is not with any precedent in any other part of the country and it needs to be condemned. The Prime Minister today has condemned the actions of those who seek, for their own political purposes and their own political advancement, to pour fuel on this fire. They deserve the condemnation of this chamber, from day one.</para>
<para>In fact, after October 7, when 1,200 people were slaughtered by a terrorist organisation, to this day, people are still held in a tunnel network. Women and children are still held by the terrorist organisation. But as we know, the Greens political party didn't wait for advice or evidence or a security briefing; they were out there condemning the Israelis immediately and without hesitation. And now we see on university campuses the hatred directed towards people who are academics, who are students, not because of views that they hold or causes that they support but because they are of Jewish faith. It is completely and utterly unacceptable and it needs to be condemned.</para>
<para>We are seeing now the offices of elected members of parliament being targeted with red paint, with vile messages of hate and discrimination and antisemitism, and it should be condemned. The Greens should condemn it instead of condoning it. Our country at the moment has an amazing Jewish community. We know, from speaking to some of the Holocaust survivors, that they fled war-torn Europe at the end of the Second World War and they have lived in our country in peace and harmony, have contributed to our great, amazing country that it is today without concern, without condemnation, without fear. We know today that those people, people who are in their eighties and nineties, are telling us that for the first time in the lifetimes they fear their presence in our country. They are talking about moving from our country and finding a safe haven somewhere else.</para>
<para>Six million people were gassed in the Second World War and we have got people in our country today out there on university campuses and outside MP's offices denying that that took place, or saying the biggest attack on the Jewish population since that time, the slaughter of 1,200 people, somehow does not count for anything and that it shouldn't be condemned. They should be ashamed of their actions and it has no place in our country.</para>
<para>We know that Hamas is using people, Palestinians, as human shields, as many terrorist organisations have done over the course of history. Why would they be any different from al-Qaeda or other terrorist organisations that we have known? Why would they value human life when many such people have had the depraved approach that they have over the course of history? Why would they be any different? Of course, they're not. We want peace delivered as quickly as possible. It is in the hands of Hamas right now. There is a deal on the table. Hamas have the ability to bring this to an end, but of course they won't, because they don't care for Palestinians. They don't care for Israelis. They care for their own power base.</para>
<para>The world should stand together to condemn the actions of antisemitism. We stand as one in this chamber—or we should stand as one—to make sure that we condemn the unacceptable levels of antisemitism that we see playing out on our streets. It has no place, and we will take every action we need, as a chamber, to make sure that we condemn those acts of antisemitism in our country. The Greens political party today is properly and rightly condemned.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Australian Greens on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. I'm seeking the call, in the same way that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were given extensive periods to free-range in an attack on the Greens. I am seeking the call on indulgence.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can seek the call. You're seeking the indulgence from the Speaker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To respond.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In practice, that has always been granted for when there is an agreed position. If you look at the history of indulgence, that's how it has been conducted.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not finished. If you wish to be granted indulgence, I'll be listening carefully to make sure you're in line with what was just said before the House. That is how indulgence works. If you wish to have another point of view, this is not the time to do that.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There are other forms of the House—whether being misrepresented, at the conclusion of question time, or other forms of the House—to make your statement known.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Member for Griffith! Member for Hawke! On indulgence—in light of what I've said, the remarks I've made about indulgence—the Leader of the Australian Greens.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This House is united in condemning antisemitism and condemning Islamophobia. We also condemn the invasion of Gaza. I will not be lectured to about peace and nonviolence by people who back the invasion of Gaza. Children are dying because the Israeli army has engineered a famine. Instead of talking about the victims, the Prime Minister wants to make it about himself.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right! The Leader of the Australian Greens will resume his seat. I explained clearly how indulgence works. It is not being granted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement to respond to the outrageous attacks from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave was not granted. Indulgence was granted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manufacturing Industry</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Albanese Labor government taking action to make more things here in Australia? What approaches has the government rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the member for Jagajaga for her question. The Future Made in Australia proposals 'represent an important recognition of the strategic importance of manufacturing, and open up hopeful opportunities'. They're not my words. They're from an open letter signed by 70 Australian economists expressing their strong support for our Future Made in Australia plan. They characterise our plan as an 'important shift in emphasis and vision' that will have benefits that spread through the economy and through society.</para>
<para>What this is about is setting us up for the future—well-paid industrial jobs, supporting regional communities, contributing at the same time to the decarbonisation that's necessary in our economy. That's what drives this government: a vision for an Australian-made future that uses our resources to make more things here, moving up the value chain and creating good jobs as we do, investing in renewable energy and strengthening our economic and national security as we do, drawing on the full potential and aspirations of all of our people and making sure that those opportunities reach every part of the country.</para>
<para>There couldn't be a clearer contrast between this and those opposite. They offer no way forward, just a dead end. They boast about shutting down Australian manufacturing and driving industries offshore. They brag about ending the Australian car industry, costing jobs and skills, putting a handbrake on the industry and cutting us out of global supply chains. What we want to do is make sure that we take advantage of those opportunities—the shift in the global economy to a clean energy economy, the opportunities that are there in areas like green hydrogen and green metals, the opportunities that are there to have advanced manufacturing here in Australia.</para>
<para>That is what we need—to have faith in our people, to have faith in the opportunities and optimism about how we can not just compete with the world, but how we can beat the world. Those opposite don't have an agenda. They just have a vendetta against workers, against manufacturing, against fair wages, against aspiration and against ambition. That's what we've seen from their gibberish that we've heard here across the chamber while this answer is being given. They don't think Australians can make things here. They just want those jobs and that value-adding to occur somewhere else. Well, that's not this government's approach, and that's why we'll continue to provide economic security by having that future made here in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Recruitment</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel. Was it ever the policy of the government to accept foreign nationals from any country permanently resident in Australia into the Australian Defence Force from 1 January next year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Canning for his question about the government's initiative to increase recruitment into our Defence Force, because, as he well knows, when he was Assistant Minister for Defence the recruitment of members into our Defence Force was a critical issue. And, whilst they accepted that they needed to grow the Defence Force, what we actually saw during their term in office was that the numbers going into defence were declining—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for Barker is warned—and he can stop eating whatever he's eating at the moment as well. It's the fourth time that's happened.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. Well, if it's ice, chew slowly.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister wasn't asked about opposition policy; he was asked about the government's policy. I'm just going to make sure that he is being directly relevant. So that's not an excuse to go back in time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Canning has asked his question. I'll just make sure he's being directly relevant. He's entitled to some compare and contrast. But we've had 30 seconds of a preamble. We'll now get back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is important to put into context why we need to be bold in our adoption of policy when it comes to growing our Defence Force—and that's exactly what we have done. So, along with a large swathe of policies, we have announced a policy to grow our Defence Force from our permanent resident population. That's exactly what I and the Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday. We're very happy with that policy because it goes straight to the part of making sure that we are addressing the issues confronting our Defence Force.</para>
<para>Now, I know it's difficult for the member for Canning, and clearly it's difficult for the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on relevance. The question was very tight. The minister yesterday gave three different versions, at odds with the Minister for Defence, and we're asking him very directly: was it ever the government's policy, what he actually announced and then was forced to retract yesterday?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is able to talk about the policy if he wishes to answer it in a direct way, but he has got to remain directly relevant. That means, for the remainder of his answer, he should not talk about opposition policy, because he wasn't asked about that in the question; he was asked about government policy. He shall return to the question. I can't make him answer in a certain way. I can make sure that the minister is being directly relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's policy is as announced yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister and me. As we both said yesterday in very clear terms, we are extending eligibility for people to apply to join the Defence Force to those that are permanent residents from New Zealand from 1 July next year and from Five Eyes nations from 1 January if they've been here for a year as a permanent resident, haven't served in a foreign military, are otherwise eligible for citizenship and, of course, pass all the relevant security vetting requirements.</para>
<para>What's really important about this policy and very important about the question just asked by the member for Canning is: not only is that the government's policy; it's a policy that the member for Canning also endorsed in May of last year, when he went out saying that we should be increasing recruitment from noncitizens of Australia. He endorsed this policy. In fact, when I spoke about this policy in January of this year, he came out and endorsed my comments, calling for this policy. I thank the opposition for their support of the government's policy as the Deputy Prime Minister and I announced.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government increasing bulk-billing? Why is it needed after a decade of cuts and neglect of Medicare?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Spence for his question. He has the privilege of representing the northern suburbs of our great city of Adelaide, a community centred around Elizabeth, which of course gave us Jimmy Barnes and many thousands of Holden motor vehicles until, of course, those opposite decided to shut down the car industry a decade ago.</para>
<para>But the member for Spence has also been a relentless advocate for our Strengthening Medicare program to boost bulk-billing, to make medicines cheaper and to roll out urgent care clinics, including the urgent care clinic in Elizabeth. It's open seven days a week, it's fully bulk-billed for patients and, importantly, it's taking much-needed pressure off the local Lyell McEwin Hospital. Suzannah's Google review is a good example of the hundreds of patients that are seen every week at the Elizabeth clinic. She wrote in her review:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Extremely quick check in to the Elizabeth Urgent Care Centre for a laceration to my hand. Highly recommend this over waiting many hours in an Emergency Department. Perfect example at what's urgent, but not an emergency.</para></quote>
<para>The 58 urgent care clinics that we opened last year have already seen 425,000 patients and are delivering urgent care, all fully bulk-billed. We also committed to boosting bulk-billing for GP visits more generally, through a $3½ billion investment to triple the bulk-billing incentive. I'm pleased to report today that, in the seven months since that funding kicked in, bulk-billing has risen in every single state and territory in the federation—by five per cent in our state of South Australia, by more than eight per cent in the state of Tasmania—across the country delivering around 1.7 million additional free visits to the doctor in just seven months. In April alone, there were 425,000 additional free visits to the doctor that would not have occurred but for the changes we made last year. For Labor, that's a big deal, because, for Labor, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare.</para>
<para>But, of course, our approach here could not be more different from that of those opposite, reflected in the member's question about 10 years of cuts and neglect, led by a man who 10 years ago famously said there were too many free Medicare services—too many apparently!—a man who then tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether in his horror health budget, delivered 10 years ago almost to the day. That's not our way in Labor. Medicare is in our DNA. That's why the member for Spence and every single member on this side of the House is fighting so hard to strengthen it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that, after two years of Labor, bulk-billing rates have dropped by 11 per cent?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the dorothy dixer from the member opposite, a member that I think all members of this House recognise as not the worst health minister in the history of Medicare but perhaps the second worst minister in the history of Medicare. What I said in the lead—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, on standing order 90: inappropriate, disrespectful language. The minister, who is a serial offender, should be counselled.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm always happy to counsel people, Manager of Opposition Business. Thank you for raising that point again about the repeated practice of undignified personal attacks. I'm going to make sure the minister does not use any such language moving forward for the remainder of this answer and any other answers he may have today.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The deputy leader asked me about the trajectory of bulk-billing. I was very clear in the lead-in to the last election—and I have been since—that bulk-billing has been falling over the last period of time, and it's no surprise. If you freeze the income of general practice for six years, which is what the Leader of the Opposition kicked off in that budget I referred to and what was continued by the deputy leader when she was the health minister, things will change. I've been honest about this. I've also been more transparent and honest about what is actually happening around bulk-billing than those opposite were. They tried to cloak the bulk-billing figure in the one-off COVID measures that had to be bulk-billed.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, Mr Speaker. How can it be in order, with such a tight question, to talk about the opposition?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was about bulk-billing rates after two years. I guess the minister wants to defend the accusation that they have or haven't dropped and is going to be talking about what he believes the rates were. I'm not exactly aware of what the rates are, so I can't adjudicate—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know the member for Riverina is trying to help, but, trust me, he's not. I ask the minister to make sure he's being directly relevant for the remainder of the answer. He won't be able, for the remaining one minutes and 57 seconds, to talk about the opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unfortunately for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the world was not created on 21 May 2022. We inherited a Medicare system that had been deeply impacted by a decade of cuts and neglect. I said very openly that bulk-billing was continuing to slide, which is why we put, in the last budget in 2023, a record investment to turn bulk-billing around. I said that would not happen quickly. I was very honest about that. I was also more transparent with the Australian people about what was really happening in bulk-billing by starting to report how many visits to general practice were bulk-billed every single month. Those opposite never reported that. They cloaked and disguised their bulk-billing data in these one-off COVID data—these tens of millions of COVID—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a minute left to go. I have a point of order under standing order 91(c), which states a member's conduct is disorderly if they wilfully refuse to conform to a standing order. You have brought the minister back to the relevance of the question, and he continues to talk about the opposition.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Take a breather. The minister is entitled to do some compare and contrast, but, if he continues with that, I will sit him down. The deputy leader is correct in her point of order, and he needs to be mindful of the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, Mr Speaker, no-one has talked about the sorry state of bulk-billing for the last several years, including since we came to government, more than me, which is why we put a record investment in last year's budget to turn it around. We tripled the bulk-billing incentive, and, since it kicked in on 1 November, it has started to rise in every single state and territory in the Federation, in seven months delivering 1.7 million additional visits. I've never sought to deny that bulk-billing was sliding. I advocated in this parliament, in the community and in the Expenditure Review Committee to deliver the biggest investment in the history of Medicare for bulk-billing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Opposition!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This guy tries to pull a stunt, when he started it all.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This guy started it all with the worst health budget in the history of the federation.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Look, whatever just happened there is completely undignified for the House. I'm going to ask all members, for the remainder of question time—it's a plea to everyone—to lift the standards and lift the tone. That's everyone.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget, Energy</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to help families and businesses with the cost of energy bills, and how does this differ from the other energy policies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I thank my honourable friend for the question and recognise her climate leadership in this parliament. On 1 July every Australian will receive a tax cut and every Australian with an energy bill will receive energy bill relief—every single Australian. Also, I'm pleased to inform the member for Higgins and the House that, from today, Australians who want to reduce their bills and emissions by installing solar panels or batteries or energy efficiency can apply for a concessional loan under our Housing Energy Upgrades Fund—from today, with the first round of that funding open. These are practical and realistic steps to help Australians with cost-of-living pressure.</para>
<para>The honourable member asked me how it compares to other energy policies. I have to confess we are searching for alternative energy policies. We are searching for alternative energy policies; we've very little detail. But—to be fair—we are starting to see some of the contours of the opposition's policy emerge. I have to say I have very real differences with Senator Canavan, very real differences on policy, but he does tend to be pretty straightforward in what he thinks. Recently, he was asked about the opposition's alleged nuclear policy, and he said, 'But we need to build coal as well, in my view, because nuclear will take too long'—nuclear will take too long. We know from the CSIRO and so many experts that no nuclear in Australia will be up and running before 2040. Senator Canavan, as he always does, said the quiet bit out loud, because this is what it's all about: they want to delay renewables and keep coal in the system for longer because they just don't believe in renewable energy.</para>
<para>The government also passed the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill through the parliament in recent days. This was an opportunity for those opposite to talk about the regions, to talk about job creation and renewable energy, but what we heard from so many opposition members was about nuclear power and nuclear energy. We've got some of the searing policy insights—some of the detail, some of the policy insight. We had the member for Lyne say, 'Nuclear power stations are basically big kettles.' That was the big, searing policy contribution. The question is: where will those big kettles be?</para>
<para>An opposition member: The member for Lyons?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lyne, I said—Lyne! Where will the big kettles be? Will there be a big kettle next to the Big Banana? Where will they go?</para>
<para>Our friend the member for Gippsland is also very honest. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's premature to be ruling regions in or out … there is simply no proposal on the table right now.</para></quote>
<para>Well, he's right about that. We know the Leader of the Nationals has polled the places where they want to put nuclear reactors. He's done opinion polling, but he won't release the details because, when it comes to an energy policy, these are not serious people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coal Industry</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Does the minister support the New South Wales Labor government's extension of coal-fired generation at Eraring?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right! The Assistant Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate this question from the member for Fairfax, Mr Speaker, because I've actually not held a press conference on this—I've held multiple press conferences on this. On each occasion I have said I agree with the New South Wales Minister for Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Heritage that we want coal-fired power stations in the grid for not a day longer than they should be, and not leaving a day earlier than they can.</para>
<para>Recently, the New South Wales government did announce a policy to extend two units of the Eraring power station for two years. This is after the Eraring power station closure was brought forward by seven years a few years ago, when the member for Hume was the minister for energy, and the member for Hume's big contribution at that point was to say, 'I heard about this on the radio; no-one told me.' The New South Wales minister for energy didn't tell him, Origin didn't tell him because they didn't trust him, and he had no involvement in the process whatsoever. On the contrary, we are working with state governments across the board, in every single state and territory, on this energy transition, regardless of what party they represent. We work closely with the New South Wales government, as we did with the previous New South Wales government. I have a good working relationship with my state and territory ministers—all of them, regardless of their political party—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause. Has the minister concluded his answer?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He didn't answer the question.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. Everyone can cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing its work to keep Australians safe online?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question, because protecting children and other vulnerable Australians from online harms is a key focus of the Albanese government. Online safety is a collective responsibility between industry, regulators, government and civil society. I acknowledge the impacted family members who have come to Canberra this week for their brave advocacy.</para>
<para>The landscape is changing rapidly. That's why we're using all levers to address new and emerging harms. It's the reason why I announced, last November, that I would bring forward the review of the Online Safety Act by a year, because we must ensure our regulatory settings are fit for purpose. When the Online Safety Act commenced in early 2022, generative AI was barely a topic of discussion for most Australians. The review is well under way, and I encourage all Australians to have their say through the consultation on important issues including: penalties and enforcement; the role and use of recommender systems; and harmful content like body-image harms.</para>
<para>The government is taking a methodical and joined-up approach across portfolios and ministers in this work. The Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society is examining the role of platform algorithms and the impact of corporate decision-making on the content that Australians see—and the impact on mental health. For the first time, the dating app industry is engaging with government to develop new rules to support at-risk users and improve their safety practices. We allocated $6½ million in the budget for an age-assurance trial to test the efficacy of a range of technologies that could be used to protect children from harmful content, including use cases for restricting access to age-inappropriate content such as pornography, age-restricted content and social media.</para>
<para>Importantly, we're supporting the eSafety Commissioner to implement the Online Safety Act, including by quadrupling its ongoing base funding. Last week's update to the Basic Online Safety Expectations is critical to providing the eSafety Commissioner with a clear and up-to-date remit.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the dedication of the eSafety Commissioner and her agency and their tireless work to keep Australians safe online. These are public servants doing vital work that is needed to uphold Australian law in the interests of all citizens. To that end, the government acknowledges the decision of eSafety, as an independent regulator, to both bring and discontinue legal proceedings in the Federal Court against X Corp. The government backs our regulators and we back the eSafety Commissioner, particularly in light of the reprehensible threats to her physical safety and to her family in the course of doing her job.</para>
<para>Finally, I understand that parents may feel overwhelmed when it comes to keeping their children safe online. There's a wealth of resources freely available at esafety.gov.au, and I encourage all members to avail themselves of these resources and to share them widely.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—Very quickly, I want to thank the minister for her update. There's no more important task than making sure we keep children safe in our community, and that is in the real world as much as it is online. Many of these companies operate in a lawless environment and have no regard even for the rule of law in a country like ours. Julie Inman Grant is one of the finest public servants in the employment of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the treatment that she has been subject to—the personal abuse and attacks and the threats and intimidation—should be absolutely condemned. I met with Ms Inman Grant, last week and I hope the Australian Federal Police, as I'm sure they will, continue to pursue those people that have made these outrageous attacks on her.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Legal Services</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a question for the Treasurer. Too many women struggle to navigate the legal system that's meant to protect them when they fear violence. Women's legal services turn away more than 50,000 women a year due to resource constraints and, with no new funding in the budget, are now having to reduce services. Why didn't the budget prioritise increasing these services, and will the Treasurer increase funding and certainty for committee legal services so women can get the support they need when in fear of violence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Curtin for her question. There was some new money in the budget for legal services, working closely with the Attorney-General, but I do acknowledge that we have to finalise the agreement in order to provide some more funding and make sure that for these really crucial legal services that we're all familiar with in all of our communities, particularly for women at risk, that funding can continue. I've had a number of meetings with the Attorney-General. We are very conscious of the pressures on these legal centres and these legal services. We provided a small amount of funding to keep things going for the time being, but we do know that more is needed, and we are committed to a new agreement that provides more funding.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deepfake Sexual Material</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Attorney-General. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to combat the serious harm being caused by the sharing of sexually explicit deepfake materials?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. Digitally created and altered sexually explicit material that is shared without consent is a damaging and deeply distressing form of abuse. We know that this abuse overwhelmingly targets women and girls. It inflicts deep, long-lasting harm on victims, it perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes and it contributes to gender based violence.</para>
<para>In recent years, the distribution of sexual material created or altered using technology has become increasingly common, and the risk of abuse is growing as artificial intelligence programs become more widely accessible. The Albanese government has no tolerance for this form of insidious criminal behaviour. Today I introduced legislation to create new criminal offences to ban the sharing of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake material online. The Albanese government's reforms will make clear that those who share sexually explicit material without consent using technology like artificial intelligence will be subject to serious criminal penalties. It will impose a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment for the sharing of non-consensual deepfake sexually explicit material. Where the person also created the deepfake that is shared without consent, this will carry a higher penalty of seven years imprisonment as an aggravated offence.</para>
<para>These penalties will assist in protecting vulnerable people from serious online harm and deter and punish this abusive and damaging behaviour. Given the significant and continuing harm that is being caused by this abusive behaviour, I look forward to the full support of the parliament for these reforms. The Albanese government continues to deliver on its commitment to end violence against women, to tackle the scourge of online harm and to keep Australians safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the NDIS and Minister for Government Services. Minister, NDIA officials told estimates that under the Albanese Labor government up to $2 billion of the $45 billion per year devoted to the NDIS is being spent on illicit drugs, holidays and expensive cars, just to name a few, and that 90 per cent of NDIS plan managers have significant indicators of fraud. Why has the minister and his hand-picked CEO allowed this to happen?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member opposite is referring to some evidence that was given in estimates in the last couple of days, but he didn't mention the person who gave the evidence.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An opposition member interjecting</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't worry, mate; I think you write your own speeches. The name of the gentleman who gave the evidence is Mr John Dado. The reason he was giving that evidence is that I picked him to come and work at the NDIA because those opposite did not take fraud in the NDIA seriously. Mr Dado is in charge of what is called Fraud Fusion Taskforce. Another memo to the members opposite: we set up that taskforce—$126 million to tackle fraud. And what did those opposite do? Nothing—zip; nada; nothing at all.</para>
<para>It's because of this government that we are now addressing the issues in the scheme. The reality, if you want to talk about all of Mr Dado's evidence, is that he has said that the problem with the NDIA's payment system is that it's immature—because those opposite never invested in the back door of the system to make sure the shonks couldn't rip off disabled people and the taxpayer. The gall of those opposite!</para>
<para>Mr Dado has informed me about plan managers. He has said that they surveyed 900 of the smallest ones, with the least turnover of business. It turns out that 350 of them are not reporting their financial income to the ATO. That is because, until this government was elected, no-one ever asked to have the ATO and the NDA talk to each other. These plan managers pay themselves as downstream providers. They're approaching participants on public transport and offering cash on the condition that no services will be delivered. They're fabricating services and claims. They're predicting to be the participant.</para>
<para>The very reason we can debate this today is because it takes a Labor government to catch the crooks. You had an F troop of ministers in the NDIA, and now you're actually doing a better job as opposition spokesperson. You've got Banquo's ghost, Senator Reynolds, running around in the upper house. The opposition put up Stuart Robert, an MP who even they don't own anymore.</para>
<para>The problem is that these problems have taken a long time to establish. But ever since we got elected: Fraud Fusion Taskforce, 500 compliance investigations, 222 matters under investigation right now, 20 prosecutions right now. When the opposition were in power, only $231 million in payments were investigated; under Labor, it's several billion. Thank goodness— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to easy cost-of-living pressures and provide relief for every Australian, and who will benefit?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Wills for the question and also for his advocacy for, particularly, the low paid and income support recipients in his electorate. The Albanese government's No. 1 priority is to provide cost-of-living relief for every Australian, and with this year's budget we are building on previous budgets, providing responsible cost-of-living relief that eases the pressure on people but doesn't add to inflation.</para>
<para>One of the ways we've been able to provide immediate assistance is through help with rental costs through our increases to the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance. As outlined in the budget, we will provide a further 10 per cent increase to the maximum rates, giving more support to pensioners, income support recipients and low-income families to help manage their rental pressures. This is tangible, additional support. For example, from 20 September 2024, a single parent with three children who rents will receive an additional $80 a fortnight in rent assistance as a result of the measures we've taken as a government since coming to office.</para>
<para>We are also providing more assistance to those on JobSeeker, particularly those who face significant barriers to getting back into employment and need a bit of extra support. As announced in the budget, we will expand eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker to include recipients with a partial capacity to work of less than 15 hours. This will provide these recipients within an extra $55 a fortnight to support them with cost-of-living pressures. It builds on our change in the last budget to extend the higher rate of JobSeeker to people aged 55 and over, who also face additional barriers.</para>
<para>The government is also supporting older Australians with cost-of-living pressures by freezing the deeming rates for a further 12 months so that part-pensioners, along with other income support recipients, can keep more of what they earn on their investments without impacting their payments.</para>
<para>We're also keeping medicines cheaper by freezing the maximum co-payment for one year for general patients and five years for concessional patients. This means cheaper medicines for over six million pensioners and other concession card holders. This includes the 29,000 additional older Australians who now have access to the Commonwealth seniors health card as a result of our government's changes to eligibility.</para>
<para>Households will also get energy bill relief and, of course, from 1 July all Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut, because this government is committed to providing cost-of-living relief for all Australians, not just some.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance: Macular Degeneration</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I'm advised by constituents that, by July 2025, sight-saving eye injections for macular degeneration will no longer be delivered routinely in private hospitals, meaning those currently covered by private health insurance will need to pay in full or go without treatment. Is this correct and, if so, why has the government made this decision?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Mayo for her question. I'm not aware of that. I'm happy to take that on notice and come back to the member as soon as possible.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What is the Albanese Labor government's response to recent proposals to cut workers' pay and take away their rights?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Wright is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Cunningham for the question. She is somebody who is representing 72,000 people, all of whom are about to get a tax cut—every taxpayer gets a tax cut because they elected the member for Cunningham—and also representing a whole lot of those 2.6 million workers who, as of the decision this week, are going to get a pay rise.</para>
<para>I'm asked quite specifically about pathways the government won't go down and policies we've rejected. Often you'll get resolutions from conferences, and you sort of think, 'Oh, that's just an outlandish conference resolution', and you don't need to take it seriously. But rarely do you find that the shadow minister, Senator Cash, has written in response to the resolutions from their New South Wales conference, describing them as 'good ideas that align strongly with the coalition's approach to industrial relations'. While we were told a while ago that they had a targeted approach, now we're getting to find out exactly what's in it. We've just been told it was an approach of repeals of what had been done during this term. Remember a while ago we heard those words from Tony Abbott that Work Choices was 'dead, buried and cremated'? What's being proposed in these resolutions that the shadow minister has described as 'good ideas' are issues that haven't been law in Australia since Work Choices. What was dead, buried and cremated—so the hands are reaching up through the dirt and it is finding its way back. Zombie agreements that were previously abolished are finding their way to be enlivened.</para>
<para>Here's what they're going to do: (1) make it easier to sack people; (2) what do they want to do with the better off overall test? Abolish the better off overall test. A lot of people might remember this from the Work Choices era—where you can have an individual contract but it's not negotiated; it's a condition of employment. Unless you agree to worse wages and conditions than you'd otherwise get, you don't get the job. That's one of the things that's been referred to by the shadow minister as one of the good ideas that's in line with their policy—and then removing award protections for anyone who is above average wages. Have a think of some of the occupations where you've got classifications where people are earning above-average weekly earnings but are within the awards system—people like teachers, people like police officers, people like coalminers. What does it mean for those workers? It means no award entitlements to rostering rules, nothing for meal breaks, no overtime rates, no shift work, no public holiday penalty rates. It means a pay cut, which is what they want. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you claim to be misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Speaker—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition earlier in question time. This Prime Minister is so desperate to detract and distract from Labor's complicity and backing of the invasion that is taking place at the moment that they will come in here and make spurious allegations—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>against Greens members of parliament that need to be corrected.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Australian Greens will just pause.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fisher knows better than that. Members on my right, I can barely hear a word that is being said. If anyone interjects on my right during this period, they'll be ejected immediately. I want to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Butler</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The standing orders in <inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">ractice</inline> in relation to personal explanations are clear. The member needs to explain where he has been misrepresented. He immediately launched into an attack on the Prime Minister. I ask that he be brought back to pointing out where he has been misrepresented.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just allow the leader to continue so he can explain to the House where he was misrepresented and how he was misrepresented—not whether he liked being misrepresented or not. I hope that's clear. The Leader of the Australian Greens has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In a desperate attempt to distract from Labor's backing of the invasion of Gaza, the Prime Minister made a number of representations—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Canberra will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). There are to be no more interjections.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Canberra then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Melbourne needs to explain exactly where—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There were misrepresentations about myself and Greens MPs in this parliament that need to be corrected. We have been crystal clear that the Greens, as a party of peace and nonviolence, support protest that is peaceful—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And we have made it crystal clear, including on the record, that that should be the case. But instead—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dreyfus</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've been doing this for months—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will leave the chamber under 94(a)! No-one is to interject while I'm hearing this!</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Instead, the Prime Minister, backed up by the Leader of the Opposition, came in here and made wide-ranging sprays attempting to connect the peaceful protests of people who are seeking to make their views about Labor's complicity with this genocide heard with the actions of other people, including here in this place.</para>
<para>Let us be absolutely crystal clear—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Griffith on a point of order and then the member for Wannon.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chandler-Mather</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a matter in relation to the standing orders, Mr Speaker. A member of the Labor Party there, I'm not actually sure of his title, made a reflection on the Leader of the Australian Greens and I'd like him to come back in and withdraw.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left! I didn't hear that—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chandler-Mather</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was the member for Solomon.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I shall deal with the member of Solomon separately to this issue. I didn't hear what was said, so I can't take action on that matter. The member for Wannon on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, a point of order: the leader of the Greens has been asked to go to where he has been misrepresented, and he is not going there. He continues to defy your ruling that he should, and I think the House is not being advanced by the leader of the Greens' conduct.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to give the leader of the Greens one more chance to explain exactly where he has been misrepresented.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I've made it clear that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a number of severe and direct misrepresentations about actions that are taking place outside this place, when we have been crystal clear on the record about our approach to how people should exercise protests. Instead, a number of severe misrepresentations were made. Why? Because they're attempting to distract from their complicity. And that's why I seek leave to move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Melbourne from moving the following motion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) The state of Israel has signed a $3 billion contract with the United States for a further 25 F-35 fighter aircraft;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia plays a significant role in the F-35 fighter aircraft global supply chain with a range of components manufactured here in Australia, including the sole manufacturing of F-35 fighter aircraft's uplock actuator system, which allows the F-35 to drop its payload; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the F-35 fighter aircraft are being used to bomb the people of Gaza; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to immediately end all direct and indirect trade of military equipment with the State of Israel, including the provision of critical components of the F-35 fighter jet supply chain.</para></quote>
<para>It is critical that we debate this motion now, because Labor is attempting to do anything to distract from their complicity in the unfolding genocide. A—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to stand up—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Resume your seat! The Deputy Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Butler</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the member had the right to issue a personal explanation, so I now move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the member no longer be heard.</para></quote>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—</inline></para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Australian Greens will cease interjecting.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Australian Greens is now warned, and members on my right will remain silent during the division.</para>
<para>The question is that the Leader of the Australian Greens no longer be heard.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:28]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>92</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E. (Teller)</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second this motion. This government is engaging in arms trading with the state of Israel as it carries out a genocide in Gaza. This government needs to—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Butler</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Greens had the opportunity for a personal explanation, so I now move that the member no longer be heard.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells being rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The member for Griffith and the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs are going to cease their conversation.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order the member for Griffiths, just cool it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Griffiths is now warned. Anyone sitting in that corner can also show restraint as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, the minister made an unparliamentary remark, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister isn't sitting in his correct seat, so that's highly disorderly if he was interjecting during a division. To assist the House, I will ask him to withdraw. I don't know what was said, I didn't hear it. The question before the House is that the member no longer be heard.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:41] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>83</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>6</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E. (Teller)</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The days of these wedge motions being put to the parliament and going to a vote end now. The harm that is being done is beyond belief. To be telling people, when there is a government calling for ceasefire, that somehow it is calling for conflict is deliberate misinformation. I don't see why misinformation coming from the Left is somehow noble when misinformation coming from the Right is so wrong. People in our electorates genuinely have real fear of what is happening. For them, it is not a political game.</para>
<para>I put this one point: when the resolution was put on a suspension of standing orders from the Greens political party last time, it was a procedural motion. The question of recognition was never before this parliament, and yet the Greens chose to message something to Australia and to the world that was inaccurate. And they got headlines around the world that hurt the Palestinian cause but helped the Greens harvest votes. What sort of party, on an issue like that, makes a decision to harvest their own votes? I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the debate be adjourned.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the debate be adjourned.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Warringah, I will ask the member for Solomon to assist the House and withdraw what he said earlier.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Gosling</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Procedure</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like some clarification in relation to events that occurred just now and during question time in terms of procedure when it comes to indulgence. The observation was that, in response to a question from the member for Mackellar, the Prime Minister exceeded the allocated three minutes of time for answer and proceeded to continue. I was not aware that any indulgence was sought at that time to continue beyond the allocated period of time. The concern that I have and wish to seek clarification on is, if indulgence is used to essentially criticise or mount an attack on members of this place or the other place and if it is then open on indulgence for the Leader of the Opposition to join in that, that could mean indulgence is now used as a precedent for criticism or attack of members of parliament in circumstances where there is limited opportunity to reply. I don't understand that that's the accepted convention on how indulgence has been exercised to date. I would also like clarification in respect to procedure when personal explanation is sought to be made. My understanding is that a personal explanation is simply to correct a mischaracterisation of a person or member and their position. Again, I'd like some clarification on the way in which that should be used because I'm concerned that was also abused in the situation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Warringah for raising that, and I just want to advise the House and particularly the member for Warringah, who's raised a valid point, of practice on pages 498, 499 and 500 of <inline font-style="italic">House of Representatives Practice</inline> on the issue of indulgence and how indulgence is granted and given by the Speaker. I won't list all of the reasons and mechanisms of how indulgence is made, but I will quote to the House the following. Indulgence can be granted for:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to make statements in relation to natural or other disasters, in tribute to deceased persons, or to speak on matters of significance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When the Prime Minister makes a statement by indulgence on an issue—</para></quote>
<para>or during question time, when the Speaker decides to grant indulgence—</para>
<quote><para class="block">the Leader of the Opposition is commonly also granted indulgence to speak on the same matter. On occasion, indulgence may be extended to a series of Members—for example, after a Member has a statement to the House …</para></quote>
<para>That's usually a statement announcing a significant issue, or, as we've had in examples during my term as Speaker, of national significance on major issues or natural disasters.</para>
<para>In the event that the indulgence is granted, the simplest way to understand it is that it's by convention of the House over a long period of time that everyone is agreeing on the same topic. I will reflect on what the member has said with regard to how indulgence is granted.</para>
<para>On the second issue, regarding personal explanations, that has been a long practice to enable someone to correct the record. It's normally done straight after question time when someone has indicated what the Speaker or an individual has said is not correct, perhaps by the use of a newspaper article or another online source, to then correct the record of what was said about the member.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Noting your comments that you will consider further the points raised, could I ask for clarification with respect to the listed instances where indulgence can be granted. I am concerned if that is going to extend to an opportunity to mount a criticism or attack on members of parliament in this place or that place, because that does not appear in the listed circumstances where indulgence is traditionally granted, and I think it opens a dangerous precedent.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Warringah. The Leader of the Australian Greens on a further point of clarification?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, on a point of clarification. On that matter, which I understand that you have said you will consider, I want to ask about two matters. Firstly, I'd ask you to consider whether the Leader of the Opposition's speech was actually simply an agreement with what the Prime Minister said or extended to other matters beyond what the Prime Minister had raised.</para>
<para>Secondly, if that is the case, to consider whether it is appropriate in circumstances where speeches turn into wideranging political debates and political attacks, whether there is any requirement—because it is not apparent to me from practice—that indulgence is only ever granted when there is agreement. It is clear that indulgence, as I read the practise, can be granted on significant matters and can be granted to other members. In that instance, I ask you to reflect about whether there is a requirement that you can only speak on indulgence if there is agreement, especially considering the Leader of the Opposition's speech on that.</para>
<para>In a parliament where there is wideranging representation from parties and independents other than the opposition and the government, I'd ask whether it is appropriate for indulgence to be used only for two parties—an opposition and a government—to attack others, and then for those others not to be able to participate in the debate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On that point, in other cases where indulgence has been granted—and that's normally on the death of a member—the indulgence is then referred to the Federation Chamber, so there are other opportunities.</para>
<para>I understand the issues that have been raised by members, I appreciate the sensitive nature of today's question time and I'll reflect on the matter.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government's incompetence and mismanagement hurting Australian families.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think the Assistant Treasurer has ever been so enthusiastic to hear from me after that diatribe. This is an enormously important topic—the government's incompetence and mismanagement. Now comes the end of our bipartisanship, because it has been two long years since the Albanese Labor government has been in power. Of course, before the last election, over two years ago, they promised a lot. They promised a $275 electricity price reduction, they promised cheaper mortgages and they promised that Australians would be better off. Even before the national account figures came out today—dire figures that they are—the Australian economy was in dire straits. This Treasurer is nothing but the 'sultan of spin'; he pretends to be a Doctor of Economics, but he's not. He's a doctor of spin. There's a true Doctor of Economics over there, while I'm talking about those opposite; he actually is a Doctor of Economics. But not the Treasurer; the Treasurer's PhD thesis was on his mentor, Paul Keating. It was nothing more than a very long love letter to Paul Keating. But this is the guy who is running the economy right now. And when you look at the results, they're truly tragic, because Australians are poorer under Labor and Australians are poorer since this Treasurer has been in the role. A typical Australian family with a mortgage is $35,000 worse off than when Labor came to power.</para>
<para>Those opposite like to talk about real wages. Well, here are the facts on real wages. For a typical working family, wages have collapsed, on average, by nine per cent. Indeed, the RBA governor said at estimates today, that real wages have gone down. There's no debate about that at all. The latest CPI figures show that Labor's cost-of-living crisis is hurting hardworking Australians in extraordinary ways. The numbers are really quite extraordinary: food, grocery prices, up by 11 per cent; housing is up by 14 per cent; rent by 13 per cent; electricity by 20 per cent; and gas by 25 per cent. They were going to fix the gas price, but it's up by 25 per cent. Those caps are working, aren't they? Health is up 11 per cent; education is up 11 per cent; and financial services and insurance are up 15 per cent. And consumer confidence is entrenched at recessionary lows.</para>
<para>Inflation in Australia is too high, it's too persistent and it is homegrown. The RBA governor, again, is calling it as she sees it. She made it clear again today that it is homegrown inflation. In fact, we know that homegrown inflation is five times the imported inflation—we see that in the data. The <inline font-style="italic">E</inline><inline font-style="italic">conomist</inline> has again declared that Australia has the most persistent stuck inflation—it's stubborn; it's not moving—in the advanced world. Our core inflation is higher than in the US, the UK, Japan, Canada and the euro area, and we are the only country amongst these where inflation is not coming down but is going up. It's gone up since December. The Treasurer say it's all tickety-boo: 'No worries, all under control; I've got it steering in the right direction. Inflation is going up beautifully.' It means he gets more revenue, of course! It's great for governments: destroy the household budget to help the government budget. That's what he's doing. But we know that our inflation is unique amongst these countries, with core inflation in Australia going up. This is the path to ruin.</para>
<para>But that's before we even learnt what we learned today from the national accounts, which came out only a couple of hours ago. It's clear from what came out today that there are no winners under the Albanese Labor government. Australians are poorer again and Australians are worse off. It's worth going through some of the numbers. We all see the reality on the ground every day. We see it in the food banks and we see it in our mortgage belt areas, where people are struggling just to buy the basics of life. We see it when we go to sport in our electorates and see that families are struggling even to pay the fees for their kids to play local sports.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Homelessness!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We see it with homelessness, as the shadow minister says. We see it wherever we go, but we saw it today in the figures in a startling, startling way.</para>
<para>We see from the GDP numbers that this is the weakest annual growth since 1991. In 1991, Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister—until December. Of course, he was rolled by his Treasurer, who blamed the bad economy on the Prime Minister. Well, the bloke over there—he hasn't turned up—I'm sure will be blaming everybody, and ultimately the Prime Minister, because that's exactly what happened in 1991 and that's the last time we saw growth where it is today. We've seen negative GDP per capita growth—that's per person. That's the one that really counts, because what you feel is the economy on a per-person basis. That's how we see it. That's how families see it. That's five quarters of negative GDP per capita growth—five in a row. It just doesn't stop—1.3 per cent through the year.</para>
<para>We know that the only thing growing in the economy now is the population, and that is not how you make people better off. Again, they're extraordinary numbers that we see today. There are over 1.2 million more Australians than two years ago. We're a proud immigrant nation, but that is too many for our housing supply. It's too many for our economy to absorb and cope with. We're seeing it in the inflation figures; we're seeing it in everything as we get around Australia.</para>
<para>There is another extraordinary number in what came out today, which is the productivity results. It's true that the RBA governor made the point today—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll talk about this. I'm glad to take that interjection from the Assistant Treasurer, because he should have a look at the numbers. That has fallen by 5.2 per cent under this Labor government. Labour productivity has fallen by 5.2 per cent since Labor came to power.</para>
<para>By the way, it's important to note that the number that came out today is very different from the RBA's forecast, and that tells you the RBA has a very big problem with this government. The Doctor of Economics over there knows that if the government doesn't do its role, if it doesn't get it right on its policies, the RBA has to do all the work, and that's pretty damn hard work when productivity has gone backwards by five per cent—over five per cent—in two years. It's a diabolical position for the RBA governor to be in, but that's what this government has achieved, and Australians are paying a huge price for that—not surprisingly, when labour productivity has gone back that far. That has not happened since the data series on productivity began. This is the first time we've seen anything like it. It is completely unique. Those opposite like to say this has happened before; it hasn't happened before.</para>
<para>Household disposable incomes are down 7.8 per cent since Labor came to power. That's your standard of living. That's Australians' standard of living: real household per capita disposable incomes down almost eight per cent since Labor came to power. Labor makes you poorer, Deputy Speaker—that's what we see in the numbers. The result is that Australians are having to dig deep. Savings have gone almost to zero—0.9 per cent. People have given up. They're digging deep into their piggy banks because that's all they've got left. There is nothing else left. They're cutting back on any spending they can cut back on. They're working extra hours. They're having to work harder and dig deep into their savings. Australians are paying a high price for this government, this Treasurer, this Assistant Treasurer and their absolute ineptitude.</para>
<para>There is a better way. It's going back to basics, making sure that you align your immigration policy with your housing supply. I would have thought that was common sense, but it's not common sense to those opposite. It means making sure you don't spend money that you don't have to. Corporate welfare—those opposite love it. We've seen in estimates over recent days the waste from the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme: $600,000 for a speechwriter. I'll tell you what: the speech we got today wasn't worth that! There is a better way. It is about going back to basics and about getting Australia back on track.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fundamental feature of the Australian economy under the Albanese Labor government is that there are more Australians in work, and they are earning higher wages than ever before. Over 840,000 new jobs have been created on our watch. Wages are moving again—in fact, wages are moving at a faster rate now than at any stage over the last decade. The good news is that, because of our tax cuts, Australians are earning more and they will keep more of what they will earn. We're also managing to repair the budget by delivering not one but two budget surpluses. We are paying down the debt that we inherited from this mob over here. Because of that, we are paying less interest on the debt that we inherited from the coalition.</para>
<para>Now, I listened carefully to the case that was going to be put against the government by the shadow Treasurer, and it boils down to two things. The first is that the Treasurer doesn't have a Rhodes scholarship, and the second thing is that it's taken more than two years for us to clean up the diabolical mess that they left us. Well, well we concede on both issues. If it takes a university degree from Oxford to deliver, then obviously we're not going to make the cut, but I put the record of Dr Chalmers, the Treasurer, against anything they have been able to deliver the 10 years they were in government, every single day. They promised budget surpluses each and every year and delivered nothing but coffee cups.</para>
<para>It is true that we haven't fixed the diabolical mess that they left us: a decade of waste and mismanagement, stagnant wages—not an accident but a deliberate design feature of their economic policies—and inflation with a 6 in front of it. We heard the member for Hume just now talk about the cost-of-living crisis. We have managed to halve the inflation that we inherited from those opposite. It is still too high, and there is more work to be done, but, if inflation with a 3 in front of it is a problem, can you imagine what they would have been thinking when they had inflation with a 6 in front of it, which is what it was when they left office?</para>
<para>The entry price to a discussion on cost of living is not what you say but what you do, and we know what they did on their watch. They delivered real wage cuts as a deliberate wage policy; a deliberate economic policy was wage suppression. They had the opportunity to vote in favour of energy price caps. They had the opportunity to vote in favour of energy bill relief and they opposed it. They voted against it. They had the opportunity to support cheaper medicines and they opposed it. They had the opportunity support higher wages and more secure jobs. Not only did they vote against it, but they have promised that they will reverse those policies if they have the opportunity after the next election.</para>
<para>Well, we've got a different plan. It's a plan that sees Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn. It's a plan that sees a record number of Australians in work, and we intend to keep it that way.</para>
<para>Towards the end of his closing remarks, I was listening very carefully to what he had to say, and it was quite clear that the coalition intends to oppose our Future Made in Australia plans. When I talk to people throughout Australia, they yearn for a time when Australia can be a country that makes things again. I know that your electorate of Newcastle, Deputy Speaker, a proud manufacturing region, a region that has a proud history of mining and manufacturing and that has built on top of that a world-class university, has transformed itself over the years, just like my region in the Illawarra. But we want to ensure that Australia will continue to be a country that makes things again, and our Future Made in Australia plan will deliver exactly that, starting with a plan to deliver energy—the sorts of energy sources that are going to drive economic development not for last century but over the next century.</para>
<para>I hear the members opposite talk about the importance of gas, and I agree; gas will be an important energy source as a transition and a feedstock for many industries. But gas alone is not going to get us there. We need to ensure that we are generating from energy sources that are going to drive industry over the decades to come—that's renewables and hydrogen. We are going to back our capacity to develop a world-class hydrogen industry. We were looking forward to bipartisan support on this issue, but it is quite clear that the coalition don't support a future made in Australia. That begs the question, if they do not support a future made in Australia, what country do they support our future being made in?</para>
<para>We are backing the ingenuity and capacity of Australians. It's why we are investing in skills. It's why we are investing in more tradespeople in traditional and new trades. It's why we're investing to ensure we have the workforce that is able to rebuild the energy network that we are going to need for the century ahead. It's why we're investing in traditional trades and new trades. It's why we're investing in universities and university students as well. It's why we have wiped $3 billion off the university debts of hundreds of thousands of Australian university students. We're encouraging more kids that come from backgrounds like mine and towns like mine to go to university so they'll have the capacity to earn and to take their place in the labour market of the future.</para>
<para>This is what a government plan, which I support, leading into the future looks like. This is what a government plan which is dedicated to a future made in Australia looks like. We know we need to support Australians through the difficult medium term ahead. That is what our tax cut for every taxpayer is going to deliver on 1 July. Eighty-seven per cent of workers in my electorate are going to be better off. It will be 84 per cent nationally. It will be 90 per cent of women. Ninety per cent of women are going to be better off. They talk about bracket creep as if it's something that affects only higher wage earners. We know it's not. They talk about aspirations as if they are something that only high wage earners have, but we believe in the aspiration of every single Australian worker, whether they're a tradie, nurse, teacher, policeman or ambulance worker. Every single Australian worker has aspiration, and we believe that our tax cuts are going to deliver a better deal for them.</para>
<para>There will be energy relief for every household as we build the new energy system which will drive household power and industry over the future. There's cheaper child care. I see the shadow spokesperson is at the table. They're opposing it. We have a plan to ensure that we are getting more teachers and early childhood educators into child care, but we're also ensuring that child care is more affordable. It is sensible economic policy. It means that families can make a decision about whether they go back to work for an extra day because they can afford to, earn more money and have their kids in high-quality early childhood education.</para>
<para>There's stronger Medicare for every community, including getting bulk-billing rates up again after we inherited a system that was on life support under the mob opposite. They strangled Medicare to within an inch of its life. It is true. We concede that we have not been able to fix in two years every single problem we inherited from that mob, but we are focused on the task. Bulk-billing rates are coming up again. There are urgent care clinics in every region across the country. We are ensuring that we are providing support through cheaper medicines for those people who are relying on our medicines to live a standard of living and a quality of life well into their old age.</para>
<para>We've been able to manage all of these things through responsible management of our budget. The national account figures today put a spotlight on the fact that we have adopted the right economic policies. If we had adopted the policies of those opposite, their slash-and-burn strategies, we would have an economy going backwards and households doing it even harder than they are today. So we are going to stay the course. We can't fix every problem we inherited from them in two years, but we are on a path. More Australians are in work than ever before, earning more and keeping more of what they've earned.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When families are lining up at food banks and they're double-income parents, Australians are hurting. When charities feeding these people can't keep their doors open because their energy bills are skyrocketing, Australians are hurting. When small businesses are paying $15,000 more on their energy bills, Australians are hurting. When families with mortgages are $35,000 worse off, there couldn't be more of a headline that indicates that every single Australian right now is hurting. Under the Albanese Labor government, the cost of living has spiralled out of control. I can say this as I represent a community in Western Sydney that is experiencing this every single day. When we come out of this place and we meet people on the ground, if you walk down the high streets of St Marys or Penrith, they're not talking about what's going on in this place or the politics; they're talking about how much they are struggling to pay the bills.</para>
<para>It's right across the board in every single policy area. The cost of health is up nine per cent. The health minister absolutely slashed Medicare subsidised psychology sessions when people are struggling with the cost of living and need to see a mental health specialist. We know bulk-billing rates are suffering. They are not improving; they are going down under this government. The <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> reported today that there is a two per cent drop in bulk-billing rates in Western Sydney. There are also many parts of this country where there are no bulk-billed doctors at all.</para>
<para>The cost of food is up 11 per cent. This is the issue. When you're going to a shopping centre as a member of parliament, people come up to you and actually talk about how much they're struggling to buy their families' groceries. My regional colleagues tell me time and time again how this government is decimating investment across the regions, whether that be the lack of infrastructure investment, attacking agricultural pursuits or making farmers pay tax on imports. Does the Labor Party not understand that these input costs need to be added, which makes food cost more? Education costs are up 11 per cent. We're moving up and up, and it doesn't matter if it is education, if it is health, if it is food or if it is rent. Rent is up 13 per cent.</para>
<para>Housing costs are up 14 per cent, and the government's solution is to try and be a part owner of your house. We've seen this attempted in New South Wales, and only 10 per cent of the places were taken up by participants. Maybe if the government was inclined to let people use their own money, their own super, to help buy a house, that would make some change for our first home owners. Perhaps getting inflation under control would assist too, given the massive increases in material cost for homes.</para>
<para>Petrol prices are really hitting families in Western Sydney. We rely on our cars to get to work, to get to footy training and to get the kids to and from school. Most importantly, do you want to talk about tradies, Assistant Treasurer? Our tradies use their utes to take tools and materials to build homes, to fix roads, to get to the new metro construction sites and to refurbish our much-needed hospitals, yet you've seen this government ram through the new vehicle emission standards without adequate debate. They actually shut down debate. This is just one demonstration of how this government has officially turned its back on blue-collar workers.</para>
<para>And, of course, we come to electricity, which is up 18 per cent, followed by gas, which is up 25 per cent. How do those opposite reconcile this when people are actually struggling to turn on their heaters this winter? Do they remember when Australians were told almost 100 times that their energy bills would be cheaper by $275? Last March, when asked by a journalist if Labor would reach that $275 reduction, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy said: 'Of course. That was what we indicated would be the impact by 2025, which is just next year.' It is absolutely extraordinary.</para>
<para>Small businesses and manufacturers are suffering too, and they want action on greater supply of gas into the domestic market so they can survive. You're talking about Aussie made? Backing our current manufacturers is what's going to continue manufacturing in this country. Small businesses need much more from this government, but it doesn't seem like they get it. Worse still, it seems like they just don't care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'Incompetence and mismanagement'—it's a lot to hear from those opposite, when I think back through their track record in government. I'm pretty sure it was the former government over there that forgot to order vaccines in the middle of a pandemic—incompetence and mismanagement. The people over there gave us robodebt—most certainly incompetence and mismanagement. The people over there, for a decade, denied climate change—most certainly incompetence and mismanagement. The people over there ignored Australian women and had keeping wages low as deliberate design policy. I could go on and on. But it is clear that, if we are talking about incompetence and mismanagement in this place, it is certainly not something that comes from this side of the chamber; it is absolutely something that we had from 10 years of a Liberal-National government that could not deliver and who did nothing—a decade of denial and drift.</para>
<para>Since we came into government, we have been working hard to turn things around. We have made cost of living our No. 1 priority. We have delivered a budget that is for every Australian: tax cuts for every taxpayer; energy bill relief for every household; stronger Medicare in every community; we've wiped $3 billion off student debt—and I've talked to so many students in my community who I know that is really important for; cheaper child care, supporting women to get back into the workforce; cheaper medicines; and fee-free TAFE—again, this has been huge in my community, where so many people are taking up the opportunity to get the skills that they need to get the jobs of the future. And, of course, we are investing in affordable homes and social housing right around the country—another area that was grossly neglected under the incompetence and mismanagement of those opposite for nearly a decade.</para>
<para>We have done all of this while being in the position of looking at back-to-back surpluses. That's right. We're delivering not just the coffee mug but the actual surplus—the actual economic management that this country needs. While we've been doing this work, those opposite have spent two years essentially saying no to everything. They voted against energy bill relief, they have said no to cheaper medicines and they continue to say no to secure jobs and to better pay. They said no to our tax cuts, then they said yes and then they said no again, and I think they eventually said yes, but it's a bit hard to follow.</para>
<para>In general, the approach of those opposite is to say no. It is not to back in Australian families. It is not to back in Australian households. It is not to back in the work that needs to happen. We had the member for Lindsay just then take us through some of the greatest hits—the few ideas that are on the table. Using super to buy your first home, what a gift for young Australians! Those opposite would say to them: 'We'll let you raid your super now, most likely driving up what we know is already the very large cost of a first home. Then, when you come to the end of your life, after you've paid this inflated price for your first house and raided your super to do it, you'll have less money to retire on.' That is not fair. That's not a plan for the future. That is those opposite suggesting that young people in this country don't deserve support to get into an affordable house.</para>
<para>We have this matter of public importance today thanks to the member for Hume. It does seem like the member for Hume can't quite kick the habit of self-congratulation in this place. Well done, Angus, and thank you for bringing this on. Of course, we do see, when we see the member for Hume's record—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members should be called by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry; I was in discussion.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>While we're reminding people of standing orders, if we're going to be conducting this to correct rules of debate, not only will we refer to members by their correct titles but I'll have no interjections from the seats. Member for Jagajaga, do you want these last remaining seconds? You'll cede your time?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Hume, of course, for providing us with this important opportunity to debate the welfare of the people of Australia and this government's poor effort in addressing their serious and genuine concerns. Regrettably, again today there was more economic data showing just how tough Australians are doing it. Whilst it was regrettable to see today's GDP numbers, they were in line with what everyone was expecting, because, as numbers of parliament, if you speak to your constituents, you'll be hearing a pretty regular catalogue of tough circumstances that they're facing right now and have been for some time. In fact, pretty much since this government came to power, Australians have been doing it tougher and tougher.</para>
<para>Of course, previous speakers from the opposition have talked about the ever-exploding household budget and how difficult it is for people to make ends meet. Whether it's their mortgages going up, their rents going up, utilities or grocery prices, they are having a real, meaningful impact on decisions people have to make around the kitchen table, cancelling family holidays they can't take this year, because they have to tighten their belts. They have to make sacrifices because, under this government, their costs are dramatically increasing. But what are their government doing while they're tightening their belts? Regrettably, it's the complete opposite. Over the last two weeks, we've had the usual entertaining spectacle of Senate estimates, and that has revealed some very interesting priorities that this government has. They're certainly not behaving like the people of Australia have to behave at the moment.</para>
<para>I think one of the most remarkable to me is the dramatic increase in the size of the public sector, with 36,000 more public servants in the coming financial year, compared to the last financial year of the previous government. That's a 15 per cent increase. For the first time ever, the Commonwealth of Australia—because don't forget these figures don't include uniformed defence personnel—will be employing more than 200,000 people. We estimate that cost is almost $24 billion over the forward estimates. So this government is spending an extra $24 billion on public servants. Not many constituents that you speak to in your electorates, when they talk about the sorts of sacrifices that they are making, would be expecting their government to be making decisions like that.</para>
<para>The Electoral Commissioner was asked to update us on the cost of the referendum we held last year. The commissioner made it clear that he was expecting the cost of the referendum to come in at around about the same cost as the last federal election. Well, the last federal election cost $522 million, so it looks like that referendum is going to cost half a billion dollars—something that the people of this country absolutely pole-axed at the ballot box, that never needed to occur and instead the government and Prime Minister pig-headedly insisted on pursuing. It looks like he's torched more than half a billion dollars on that referendum for the people of this country to say resoundingly they did not want what the Prime Minister was offering them.</para>
<para>We see across all departments, with an election year looming, all this expenditure on government advertising, whether it's advertising tax cuts that happen automatically; advertising the 'Made in Australia' program, which my friend the member for Casey has sensibly renamed the 'Made in America' program thanks to the most significant decision they've made so far being the PsiQuantum computing investment. There's nearly a billion bucks across the Australian and Queensland governments going toward a non-Australian venture. So there is the 'Made in America' policy of this government, which they're spending $54 million advertising to the people of this country in the next financial year, which happens to be an election year. I don't know if there are too many people watching the State of Origin tonight or who watch the nightly news that need to see ads about the 'Made in America' program of this government, because no Australian seems to be able to get any access to it, but it's clearly an attempt by the government to try to look like they're doing things about the serious concerns that the people of this country have, because the opinion pollsters are in there, telling the campaign hierarchy this government's got some problems and, if you can't actually solve any problems, which you've proved over the last two years, let's at least try to look like we're doing it. The best way to do that is to put nearly $200 million into taxpayer funded advertising in an election year. That's what this government's focused on.</para>
<para>Thank you to the member for Hume for the opportunity of this debate. I only wish it was one the government would listen to and then actually focus on doing something practical and tangible for the people of this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I reckon the member for Hume is the Dennis Denuto of the Australian political discourse. It's not a huge amount of value he adds to it overall. He sits behind the Leader of the Opposition in question time and throughout the proceedings of the parliament, and one would expect he is feeding through the very best advice to the Leader of the Opposition. We know the Leader of the Opposition's not all that interested in the Australian economy; he's never particularly taken a great interest. He has his head down whenever the Treasurer is on his feet, flicking through the <inline font-style="italic">Trading Post</inline> looking for jousting sticks. The reality is he's got that big old brain sitting behind him—the Dennis Denuto of the Australian political discourse—and you'd expect the best advice to be coming up to the Leader of the Opposition. If I was the Leader of the Opposition I would be expecting the best advice to be coming up. Sometimes he sort of turns and motions for it to come, and all that seems to materialise is that eternal offer of a glass of water that comes from the member for Hume. At the end of the day, it is apparent to everybody in this chamber and, more importantly, apparent to everybody in Australia that the member for Hume, in his position as shadow Treasurer, and indeed the entire Liberal Party haven't overcome their decade of waste and mismanagement in office, and they intend to continue to prosecute a policy vacuum when it comes to the economic interests of Australian households.</para>
<para>Now, 1 July is bearing down upon us. And on 1 July every single Australian taxpayer will wake up to a tax cut. Labor's tax cut plan will deliver tax cuts for 13.6 million Australians. In my electorate of Hawke alone 73,000 people will wake up to a tax cut on 1 July. They won't have to fill out forms, there won't be colour-coded spreadsheets, there won't be any bureaucratic process the Liberal Party can cut services from in order to access those tax cuts; they will be immediately available to every single taxpayer in Australia. This stands in stark contrast as an approach to the Liberal government of the last decade.</para>
<para>We have the cost-of-living challenges that our people face as our absolute No. 1 priority. What did we get from a decade of Liberal government? We got a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. That is the legacy of a decade of Liberal government—a trillion dollars of debt. I see the member for Casey smirking away over there; he and I have discussed this many times. A trillion dollars of Liberal debt is the legacy of a decade of waste and mismanagement from the Liberal Party opposite. And Australians have woken up to this fact, this false reality that the Liberal Party have projected for oh-so-long that they are the superior economic managers. They have been left by the Liberal Party with a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. And what have we done with the Australian budget? What have our Treasurer and our Prime Minister done? We have now delivered consecutive surpluses in the Australian budget—something that those opposite, despite the mugs, weren't able to do for nearly a decade. They made promises, they made political statements, they stood on their soapboxes, they projected their superior economic management skills but they could not get to a single budget surplus in that decade.</para>
<para>Not only are we delivering a budget surplus; we are also delivering on the cost-of-living measures that are so necessary for the Australian community. We are delivering tax cuts for every single taxpayer, as I discussed. We are delivering power bill savings; every single household will get a $300 rebate on their power bills. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by an additional 15 per cent. And we've wiped almost $3 billion in student debt, helping more than three million mostly young Australians who are training to do the jobs of the future that our economy requires.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can hear the member for Longman; he's been carrying on up there all afternoon. It doesn't matter what you do to the member for Longman; he is still an absolute rissole. The reality is the Labor government is getting on with ensuring that Australians earn—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Hawke may take his seat. The member for Moncrieff?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Reflections on members. I ask that the member withdraw that comment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For the purposes of assisting the House, would the member for Hawke please withdraw?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rae</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I also like rissoles, but I will of course withdraw for the purposes of the House. The reality is— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hawke was right about one thing: I was smirking and laughing when he used the one-trillion-dollar debt misinformation campaign that the Treasurer continues to run. The budget papers show it was $519 billion at the time, and that about 30 to 35 per cent of that was actually from the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. The member for Parramatta would know that time well. I give credit to the Assistant Treasurer, that he didn't run with that mistruth. But the member for Hawke likes to, which says more about him than others.</para>
<para>It was staggering in question time today, when the Treasurer was asked about the economy. He said how great it's going, that Australians have never had it better and that the Australian government have it right on track. They're on track and the plan is working—those were his words. Well, what it shows is a Treasurer who is proud to have been in 18 budget lock-ups and talks about it like it's a great thing. But actually what it shows is a Treasurer who is disconnected from the Australian people, a Prime Minister who is disconnected from the Australian people and a government that is out of touch and disconnected from the Australian people.</para>
<para>I want to share the words of one of my constituents, James. His words need to be heard today, and maybe those opposite can understand that this is the impact on many in the community. In James's words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This $300 energy bonus is just a slap in the face to us all.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have always made sure all bills are paid on time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I saved my arse off to purchase a house in Warburton. When all these rate rises have gone up, the price of fuel and the biggest 1, FOOD—it's tearing me down like nothing else.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">My rates have still not been paid this year well over due now and the council really don't care either just want there money!</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Most of us are at breaking point!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No money left to live yet I work full time, have a good job.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">It's not like I'm lazy and can't be bothered.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I feel as though lots more could be done to help us Australians out of this mess that we find ourselves in.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have never been so cash poor in my life. The kids are feeling it. My partner is feeling it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have even had to go to a food shelter for bread and veggies a few times to just feed the family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We both work yet still not enough money to go round.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Go back only 5 years, I was earning less money yet able to save at least $300-$500 per week <inline font-style="italic">and</inline> still paying for everything.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Something is very, very wrong!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They say we understand Australians are doing it tough at the moment!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's the wrong word!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are at rock bottom!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I understand this will do nothing to help anything at all, but just feel like our voices are not being heard at all!!!!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's a real shame what has happened to Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's quickly becoming the not so lucky country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government works for us as a whole, yet we all take the hit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's stupid!</para></quote>
<para>James, thank you for having the courage to share your story. Your words have been heard in this House. And the hope is that the hubris of the Treasurer and the hubris of the Prime Minister will stop—that they will stop celebrating the supposed strength of this economy and celebrating the challenges to the Australian people.</para>
<para>Make no mistake: this is in the control of this government. I will quote this Prime Minister from when he was opposition leader, from 4 May 2022:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians are being hit with a triple whammy of skyrocketing costs of essentials, falling real wages and now an interest rate hike. They need a government with a plan to ease the cost of living.</para></quote>
<para>That was 4 May 2022. How is that plan going, Prime Minister? How is that plan going for James, for the community in Casey and for the communities all across the country? If the Prime Minister had the courage to say in 2022 that he had a plan for the Australian people to ease the cost-of-living crisis, then he should stand at that dispatch box in 2024 and apologise to the Australian people—apologise to James and his family. The Prime Minister should admit that he has failed—his plan has not worked—because there is not one Australian who is doing it better today in 2024 than on 4 May 2022. This Prime Minister stands condemned for his lack of action— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Paris Olympics are coming up, and on this side of the House, we're very excited because, on the Labor side, we our own Olympian—the great Dan Repacholi—on the hunt for gold. Dan Repacholi is currently in Europe, smashing a few bull's-eyes and probably smashing a few schnitzels as well, I dare say. But it occurred to me that, on that side of the House, they might have their own shot at Olympic gold as well, because the shadow Treasurer today performed an absolutely beautiful triple-backflip. He performed a backflip and deserves a gold medal for hypocrisy.</para>
<para>Two weeks ago, the shadow Treasurer was running around telling everybody in Australia that the government's budget didn't cut far enough—it was too soft, it needed more cuts, it needed more savings, it needed bigger budget surpluses. But today, in the extraordinary Olympics-worthy backflip of the shadow Treasurer, he had a completely different message. Today, when the weak GDP numbers came out, he now thinks the economy is fragile. Two weeks ago, he wanted more cuts—he said it's a big spending budget. On 14 May he said it's a big spending con job. He said Labor has added $315 billion of new spending at a time when we need restraint. But today he wants us to know the opposite. Today he wants us to know that the economy is in dire straits, that consumer confidence is at recessionary lows. Well, which is it? Is the economy in desperate need of more cuts, as he said two weeks ago? Or is it weak and in need of support, as he seems to be saying today?</para>
<para>Two weeks ago, he wanted a bigger budget surplus and big budget cuts; today, he realises that those would have been a devastating outcome for an economy that is fragile in the face of a weak GDP and significant global challenges. And so, the most embarrassing moment of the day for the shadow Treasurer was when it was put to him that he should articulate his own fiscal position, and he couldn't. Of course he couldn't! Because two weeks ago he was saying we should spend less and today he's talking about the economy being weak. He cannot answer the question, 'What would you do?' because he is so confused. He's like Elmer Fudd, firing off bullets in every single direction, trying to land a shot. In fact, he has no coherent position, and every day he shows his own hypocrisy.</para>
<para>He's tried the backflip, he's hit his head on the diving board and, to make matters worse, this morning the Governor of the Reserve Bank gave him quite a slap. He tried to verbal the Governor of the Reserve Bank; he said that she had said that real wages were falling, that typical family real wages fell by nine per cent, but that isn't actually what the Governor of the Reserve Bank said at all. For the benefit of the shadow Treasurer, let me read the full quote from the Governor of the Reserve Bank. She said 'real wages have been negative' but then she said, 'they have started to rise, they are rising now'. What she was talking about when she said real wages have been falling was the record under the previous government. And what she explicitly acknowledged was that right now real wages are rising. That was the first slap that the governor gave to the shadow Treasurer, but she gave him another good one, which keen observers will have noticed.</para>
<para>She gave him a slap on the energy rebate. The shadow Treasurer has been briefing everybody over the last two weeks that the energy rebate will be expansionary, that it is unnecessary, that it will build cost a lot of money, that it will put up prices and that it will, ultimately, lead to higher inflation and higher interest rates. Unfortunately for him, the Governor of the Reserve Bank said exactly the opposite of that this morning. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is helping people who clearly are hurting at the moment. But I don't think it's material in terms of our forecast for inflation.</para></quote>
<para>Ouch! The Governor of the Reserve Bank has said that the measures the government is putting in place to help Australians are not changing her inflation forecast, completely torpedoing the primary attack of the shadow Treasurer. If only he hadn't helped her by torpedoing his own attack today by confusing himself on the government's fiscal position!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the speakers from both sides who have spoken before me. We've heard a lot of advocacy by metaphor today. The member for Hawke and the member for Parramatta jumped right in. We heard from Dennis Denuto. To the children upstairs, I can say that Dennis Denuto was a lawyer in a movie. He tried to help in a High Court case by passing water. But here's the thing: that was actually more helpful than what this Treasurer or this government is doing. So I'd like to take another metaphor. You all know <inline font-style="italic">The Simpsons</inline>. There are various characters. This government likes to use <inline font-style="italic">The Simpsons</inline>. In question time, it likes to refer to it. I want to pick a character that people are familiar with, Ralph Wiggum. You all know the meme; Ralph Wiggum says, 'I'm helping.' That's what we've heard from the member for Parramatta. Why should Australians complain, because, like Ralph Wiggum, you're helping? The government's helping.</para>
<para>We know that there is a delicate balancing act, and the member for Parramatta sought to show some sort of hypocrisy. How can you on the one hand say that the government should spend less and on the other hand say that the economy is weak? It's because there is a delicate task here, which is that we want to take the heat out of the economy but not crash it. There are three actors in that delicate task: there are families, who are doing their bit, and we heard from the member for Casey the brutal reality of how hard that is and the stress that comes with it; there is the RBA, with monetary policy, doing their bit; and then there is fiscal policy through the government.</para>
<para>The member for Solomon and I have both been on various Army exercises, including a commando one where you were told to do a delicate task: 'Here is your heavy pack, here is the distance you have to go, and you must get there within a certain window—not too soon, not too late. If you get there too soon, the mission has failed. If you get there too late, the helicopter has gone.' It doesn't help that delicate task if someone is saying, 'I'm going to jump in your backpack and say that I'm helping.' So Ralph Wiggum jumps in your backpack, and then, as you're trying to get through and balance this delicate logistics task that you have, and you're hurting and your feet are hurting and you've got other people whom you're responsible for, Ralph Wiggum reaches into your backpack, pulls out a chocolate bar and says, 'Here. Look what I've just given you: your chocolate bar'—your tax cuts—'How grateful you should be for what I'm giving you. I'm giving you something you already had. It's yours anyway. You can thank me later.'</para>
<para>Families who are doing it tough need better than Ralph Wiggum. They need better than metaphors from this government. The matter of public importance is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This Government's incompetence and mismanagement hurting Australian families.</para></quote>
<para>We know the brutal stories of how tough families are doing it. The median wage in Australia is $65,000. The average wage is $95,000. Everyone in this debate—all of us—is earning more than double that, so we must remember that, when families get an email with an extra bill or with a notice that says, 'You're overdue,' they feel that in a very brutal way, and not just in a personal way like cutting back on holidays and school trips and restaurants. Mums and dads who are responsible for their children know that they will have to cut back on things that they never thought they would, or should, have to cut back on. That's the brutal reality of families trying to balance this delicate task of their role in the economy and their role in their own households, and we must never forget that. When they see food go up and up and up and they're making choices about fresh or preserved, when they see energy costs go up and up and up and in winter, where we are now, they're turning the heating off and in summer they're turning the air-conditioning off, and when holidays are getting cut, that is the brutal reality of what families are facing now.</para>
<para>Of course, there are aspects of this that are not solely the government's responsibility or even, indeed, that of our own nation. There are worldwide pressures on inflation. In this difficult time, what you want more than anything is a government that is competent, and that means ministers who are across their brief. A government is made up of ministers in a wide variety of portfolios, and we have seen in the last few weeks incompetence after incompetence. Australians are noticing and we've heard comments. Australians have said, 'It feels like the wheels are falling off.' I always put the interests of Australia before my party and myself. You're still in power for at least another year. Put the wheels back on, get control and show some competence in every area that Australian families need.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With a topic this broad, there are many things where I could talk about the things that our government are doing to support Australian families, to manage our economy, to lay the foundations for future growth, to get inflation under control and to support people with the cost of living. But I want to focus particularly on an area that's really important not just for my community where I live but for all Australians around the country. I want to talk about the Australian Public Service.</para>
<para>I want to begin by addressing the continued attacks from those opposite on the Australian Public Service and on my community of Canberra that have just been non-stop over the last few days. We hear it in 90-second statements every day, we hear it in their speeches on legislation, and we've heard it today in this MPI—speech after speech, day after day. The people opposite are undermining the very institutions that serve all Australians and the very institutions that they seek to lead. They are suggesting that our investments to rebuild the Public Service is wasteful.</para>
<para>In his budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition had a crack at what he called 'office staff in Canberra' and said that he would reprioritise what he called 'Canberra-centric funding'. Just this week, the member for Wide Bay claimed that we are becoming a bureaucratic paradise. The member for Dawson said that we're a bloated bureaucracy that doesn't understand how the real world works. The member for Fadden complained about what he called a 'senseless proposal to take care of Canberra-centric public servants'. In fact, on Monday alone, the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>recorded a total of 59 occasions where coalition members used the word 'Canberra' with negative connotations—59 times in one day!</para>
<para>I just feel that this is part of a bigger problem for my city, my community of real people working hard every day, facing the same challenges and looking for the same opportunities that everyone else is, who then see the politicians in this place attack them and paint their city in a particular way day after day after day. It's an easy target for people. I feel that it is a real problem that it can be politically advantageous to attack Canberra in a way that is not true of any other city or town in Australia. Also, attacking the Public Service is an easy target.</para>
<para>But I am incredibly proud to represent so many Australian public servants who live in my electorate. It is a really special person that wants to make their career in the Australian Public Service. It is someone who has the national interest at heart. It is someone who wants to serve Australians in what they do every day. Having worked as an Australian public servant, I know that these are some of the most dedicated and professional people that you'll ever meet, working to serve governments from both sides with the same impartiality and dedication because they want to get the best outcomes for Australians. They want to get the best policies. They want to deliver services in the best way. But those opposite want to paint this false dichotomy that somehow there's—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It undermines democracy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It undermines our democracy, as the member for Moreton has said, and it also creates this false dichotomy that there are public servants in Canberra and then there are people in business and there are farmers and there are people who are doing the important stuff. The fact is that, without those public servants, all these other critical parts of our economy cannot function. It's not only that I've grown up in Canberra, that my father was a career public servant and one of the most professional and hardworking people—I am so pleased to have his example—and that I represent so many but that I understand the way that democracy and our economy work and how critically important it is to have a public service that lays the foundations for that. Our public servants are the people who deliver the services we need every day.</para>
<para>After a decade of neglect, we had around a third of public servants who were actually contractors. After a decade of outsourcing and underinvestment, we are investing back into the APS to ensure that it has the people it needs to meet the expectations of Australians. We know that the former government artificially suppressed the size of the Public Service with an artificially low and misleading headcount augmented by a shadow workforce of tens of thousands of more expensive consultants and contractors.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And they let the veterans down, as the member for Solomon has said. There is also addressing waiting lists, the backlogs of visas and people making Centrelink claims. That's what our government's about: getting things back on track. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>89</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7194" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know people have been waiting with bated breath for the continuation of this speech! I'm glad that the member for Gippsland has returned to hear the end of this tale about private health insurance legislation. The onerous paperwork process has not kept up to date with technology. In most cases, this is hard copy paperwork that requires two handwritten signatures. This is not exactly in step with the 21st century at all. It is also acknowledged that this process fails to safeguard Medicare from fraud.</para>
<para>Once again Labor is fixing the mess created by the former coalition government. The coalition failed to make Medicare safe and they also failed to make billing processes simpler and more efficient for either practitioners or patients recognising the technological advances of the 21st century.</para>
<para>So what does this bill amend? Firstly, it brings the assignment-of-benefits process forward to employ the new digital solutions that are widely in use everywhere. In fact, most people have it in their pocket: some sort of mobile device. I'm talking about providers and patients being able to use digital or electronic signatures to sign the assignment documentation, a timesaving and more efficient process indeed. In fact, it is as simple as a tap. It also has the benefit of making the process clearer for patients so they can make informed choices about their healthcare options and their billing. Patients will be able to assign a Medicare benefit before or after receiving a health service. Key stakeholders advocated for this change along with the capability for ongoing assignment agreements in cases.</para>
<para>The reforms also take into account the increasing telehealth trend. An online signing process will remove the potential incompatibility of the verbal assignment with legislation for bulk-billed telehealth services. We won't make this change overnight; we want to ensure that the new process includes forms and systems that are fit for purpose and ones that will be futureproofed and adaptable in the face of technology advancements. We'll be consulting with practitioner representative organisations to make sure they're right before they're designed and rolled out. It is our clear intention to reduce the administrative burden on healthcare providers with these reforms. People don't go to medical school to deal with bits of paper and Medicare forms.</para>
<para>Thankfully, the days of taking your doctor's payment receipt into a Medicare office to get your cheque refund are long gone. For the kids listening at home: if you're Googling that word cheque, it's spelled c-h-e-q-u-e. Soon the onerous, paper based, burdensome assignment-of-benefit process will be gone too. The bill also includes amendments that improve the requirements for recordkeeping, which further supports audits of services. Information that is already collected by the sector will be able to be used flexibly.</para>
<para>The reforms in this bill are an important part of strengthening Medicare and making it efficient and modern for both practitioners and patients. The Albanese Labor government believes in Medicare and continues to drive measures that make it easier and cheaper for Australians to access high-quality and affordable healthcare. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7197" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 makes important changes to increase support payments, as outlined in the budget, to strengthen Australia's social safety net. The boost to Commonwealth rent assistance complements Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. Every worker in Australia will get a tax cut on 1 July. We heard the good news as well this week that the minimum wage will rise again, faster than inflation, delivering to the lowest paid workers in the country a real wage rise that will flow to many others. Of course, strengthening the social safety net is so important for those Australians relying on social security: pensioners, disability pensioners and others.</para>
<para>In particular, nearly a million households in this country will benefit from the rise in Commonwealth rent assistance. That's a 10 per cent boost to the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance. Since the government was elected, just two years ago, Commonwealth rent assistance has increased by more than 40 per cent. That includes the 15 per cent which took effect last October and another 10 per cent in this budget, which this bill gives effect to. Renters living on social security are some of the most vulnerable in the country, particularly with the increases in rents in many parts of Australia, and this is going to benefit nearly one million households.</para>
<para>The second thing this bill does is to expand eligibility to the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single people with a partial capacity to work of less than 15 hours. It will boost the rate of JobSeeker payment to the higher rate for those Australians who have been assessed as being able to work for less than 15 hours. Since May 2022 the base single rate of JobSeeker has increased by $120 a fortnight. That's an 18.7 per cent increase in the last two years. It's $3,100 extra a year in the pockets of people surviving on JobSeeker, the largest increase in real terms for over 40 years—that is, an increase in real terms above the rate of inflation of 7.4 per cent. Of course, many people on both sides of the House would like us to continue to do more, to implement further recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. This budget addresses, I think, around half of their recommendations in one way or another.</para>
<para>The third thing which this bill does is to provide for more flexibility for carer payment recipients to manage their work commitments and balance them with caring responsibilities. That's really important. I see people in my community—and you would in yours, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—who have significant caring responsibilities and balance them with part-time work. With part-time work, shift work or casual or flexible work there are times when you can work more and there are times when you can work less. There are times when you have less family support and need to care more, and there are times when you have more. The changes in this bill are sensible. They help people by changing the 25-hour-per-week limit, which has been hard and inflexible, to a more sensible 100 hours over a four-week period. It provides the flexibility for people to work a bit more or a bit less in balancing their caring responsibilities. It will also remove some of the restrictions on study, volunteering and travelling for work, which again have been inflexible and seem really quite unfair situations for many Australians caring for loved ones.</para>
<para>I only had a taste of caring for a loved one in my life. I was not on carers payment, but I cared for my mum when she was dying of cancer over a 10 month period. There are good days and bad days. There are days when you can get to work and days you can't get to work. That was for 10 months.</para>
<para>I have the utmost empathy and respect for people who literally care for loved ones—for their husbands, wives, children or other family members, or sometimes close friends who have no family—for years. I meet them doorknocking. I was out doorknocking in Endeavour Hills for the last few weekends, and I met a number of people who've been stuck at home for years and are trying to balance this with part-time work. This measure will make an enormous difference to those people, making the rules fairer and strengthening our social safety net.</para>
<para>This measure will also—and this is a really important change—extend to the carer's payment a six-month suspension period if you decide you're going to work full-time, because you might have another family member come from overseas or from interstate, who wants to spend time with your loved one for a few weeks. It then enables people to go back to work for a few months and get a bit of money in. The problem with the system at the moment is that when that happens, you're immediately cut off the payment. Then you're forced to re-apply and go through all the rigmarole. Then it might happen again, because another family member might come from interstate and you cut off the payment.</para>
<para>This change is really sensible. It will cut red tape, it will cut the burden on Centrelink and it will provide that fairness and flexibility to people to balance changes in their caring responsibilities with work, by allowing a six-month period where, rather than cancelling the payment, people will be able to just suspend the payment if they're working more for a while, and, importantly they'll still get to keep the concession card.</para>
<para>This is a change that the government rolled out through the employment white paper in the last budget to unemployed Australians to encourage people to take up work without fear, to try full-time jobs, to see if they pass the probation period, without being kicked off Centrelink. They're put on what's called the 'zero rate', the nil rate, and allowed to keep their concession card, removing a big disincentive for people to take work, for unemployed people, and in this case for people with caring responsibilities.</para>
<para>That zero rate and keeping the concession card has long been available to Australians on the disability support pension and it's terrific that we're rolling it out now to strengthen the social safety net and make things a little easier and a little fairer for other Australians with episodic work. It removes a real disincentive to work. You can't overstate the psychological factor for so many Australians of the fear of the loss of their concession card, where they think, 'But if I take this work I'll get some extra money and I want to do that and I can, because I've got the kids covered or I've got the relatives covered, but I'll lose the concession card,' which is worth a lot of money, particularly if you've got relatives or health conditions with all the concessions. So this is a terrific reform and I congratulate the minister on getting government support in the budget for this.</para>
<para>A final couple of things I'll say, just to set the context, these recommendations respond, in part, to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee's work. Importantly, though, they're being delivered. The cost is a couple of billion dollars over the forward estimates. They're being delivered in a fiscally responsible way. The last two budgets represent an $11.5 billion investment to strengthen the social safety net, but we've still managed as a government to deliver the first two surplus budgets that this country has seen in nearly two decades. Let that sink in. The government has managed to cut tens of billions of dollars of rorts and waste from those opposite. We've been responsible, and banked the extra revenue that's come in—extra tax revenue—instead of spending it like they did like drunken sailors, running up the national debt, nearly a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, with not nearly enough to show for it, and record deficits. We've managed to run two surplus budgets, we've reduced Australia's debt forecasts by over $152 billion from the mess we inherited, and we're managing to strengthen the social safety net.</para>
<para>I say to any Australian listening, and particularly to those opposite, do not accept the brand propaganda that somehow this bunch of clowns are good at managing the budget, because the facts and the records say otherwise. Two surplus budgets. You didn't manage one in 10 years. You got the 'back in black' cups printed, didn't you. You had all the mugs going, but you never delivered a surplus. You spent most of the new revenue, you ran up inflation, you ran up the national debt. Your record is disgraceful. All the time, despite that record, you were cutting welfare from the most vulnerable Australians, including—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're a good bloke—including so many people who live in your electorate.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the poorest electorates in the country, and your record is cutting welfare. Our record is strengthening the social safety net.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many Australians are struggling right now. Inflation has degraded wages, and for many it can feel like they're just barely keeping their head above water. In my electorate of Wentworth, where nearly 50 per cent of constituents rent, I know that this year has seen budgets stretched and patience thin. But, while I know all Australians are doing it tough, the burden of the cost of living is not shared equally. Those on the lowest incomes and income support feel the greatest pain and insecurity when prices are rising.</para>
<para>Across Australia an astonishing 10 per cent of people—or three million people—are currently experiencing poverty, and this number is only likely to grow as we see inflation moderating but remaining high. The price of food and non-alcoholic beverages has increased by 12 per cent in two years. Rents are growing twice as fast as wages, with only one in 100 rentals now considered affordable for households in the lowest 20 per cent of the income distribution, and more than 175,000 households are on the waiting list for social housing.</para>
<para>This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024, is an important budgetary measure that will go some way to supporting Australians in the most vulnerable financial situations. This bill increases the Commonwealth rent assistance by another 10 per cent on top of last year's increase of 15 per cent. It extends the higher rate of JobSeeker to individual recipients with a very limited capacity to work between zero and 14 hours, and it increases the flexibility of carer payments to a person's temporary changes in circumstances. I appreciate these changes and acknowledge the difference they will make to the lives of many people in this country.</para>
<para>However, even with this bill, the rates of support don't go far enough. With a shortage of social housing and a long waitlist, the private rental market is where people go to find homes. But with vacancies rates around one per cent this is becoming harder and more expensive to do. In 2020 the Grattan Institute indicated the Commonwealth rent assistance needed to rise by around 40 per cent to keep up with market rents. Even with consecutive increases in the CRA the cumulative growth is still not keeping up with what is needed.</para>
<para>The expansion of JobSeeker supports to those with very limited capacity to work rectifies an oversight in previous legislation but does little to address the adequacy of JobSeeker payments more generally. Earlier this year the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee found the current rates of JobSeeker are all below the poverty lines used in Australia. Depending on the measure the current JobSeeker payment sits somewhere between 57 and 72 per cent of the poverty line. That means people are living in poverty. In its prebudget submission the advisory committee recommended that the rate of JobSeeker be increased to 90 per cent of the age pension, which would have increased at a rate of roughly $17 a day. This recommendation was not actioned.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill moves the needle in the right direction and I commend the government for listening to the advice of experts and delivering help where it is most needed. I acknowledge the truth of the Treasurer's words that he cannot provide money or funds for all the worthy projects that he and others across this parliament are approached on. However, I think that in this budget we should have seen greater support for those who most need it, particularly in terms of the rate of JobSeeker, and we should have considered other areas of spending restraints to enable that to happen—including, for example, holding back some of the current infrastructure spending, which could have allowed some of that spending to be available, or looking at things like fuel tax credits, which could have also freed up some money for the budget in this case.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. The Albanese Labor government is committed to responsible cost-of-living relief for Australians, delivering targeted support for pensioners and income support recipients.</para>
<para>In the 2024-25 budget, the government is investing $2 billion to provide more support in the social safety net, with changes to income support. We want to reduce disadvantage and build a strong and sustainable social safety net that provides relief to those most in need when they need it. The government is committed to providing more support where it can to those most in need, where it is responsible and affordable to do so.</para>
<para>This bill is part of our broader plan and delivers targeted assistance to further strengthen Australia's social security safety net. The measures in this bill include: $1.9 billion to increase the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent; $41.2 million to extend the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single recipients with a partial capacity to work fewer than 15 hours per week; and $18.6 million to change the 25-hour-per-week participation rule for carer payment recipients to allow 100 hours over a four-week settlement period.</para>
<para>These build on the measures in our last budget which increased working-age and student payments by $40 a fortnight, expanded eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker, expanded parenting payment single to parents until their youngest child turns 14 and increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. This bill provides an increase in the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent. It's the second consecutive rise under this government, and that's the first time in more than 30 years. We know rental markets are becoming more expensive, particularly for those on low fixed incomes. There is a whole other debate about why that is, but it's particularly because of 10 years of inaction by those opposite in terms of leaving the housing market to the market and not doing nearly enough to get more housing supply into the country.</para>
<para>The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee endorsed an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance as the best way to address rental affordability while at the same time ease cost-of-living pressures. By increasing rental assistance, the government is providing targeted, effective assistance for low-income households in private rentals. We are addressing the pressure associated with housing costs for close to one million households. In my electorate of Lyons, thousands of families will be better off, with more than 5,200 households in my electorate set to benefit. When this increase takes effect later in the year, it will mean, combined with indexation, that rent assistance will have increased by more than 40 per cent since the Albanese government was elected two years ago.</para>
<para>This bill will also extend eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker to single recipients who have an assessed partial capacity to work of under 15 hours per week. We recognise that barriers faced by this cohort of not being able to work as much as they might want to and the financial strain this can create. Around 4,700 people will benefit from at least an additional $54.20 a fortnight, better reflecting their needs and circumstances and supporting them with their daily living costs. This is particularly important for people who are not eligible for disability support payments, for example, but who otherwise face barriers to full-time employment.</para>
<para>This is exactly the case for Paul, who called in to my Perth electorate office recently for some advice on social security payments. After a recent injury, Paul requires several weeks of physio and his capacity to work has been reduced while he recovers. The higher payment rate will assist jobseekers like Paul to support themselves to a greater extent while still pursuing work with social and economic benefits.</para>
<para>The bill also allows for more flexibility in the hours that carer payment recipients work, study or volunteer over a four-week period. Specifically, the government is providing $18.6 million over five years from 2023-24 to change the 25-hour-per-week limit to instead allow up to 100 hours of work over a four-week settlement period. Recent figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that the number of people receiving carer payments has increased steeply over the past two decades. About one in 10 Australians provide unpaid care for a friend or family member and, as of March last year, more than 300,000 people were receiving carer payments. And I'd just like to give a quick little shout out to every carer in Australia. They do amazing, incredible work.</para>
<para>The majority of carers, 80 per cent in fact, were aged 16 to 64, representing 1.5 per cent of our working-age population. The change will improve the ability of these carers to structure their work commitments, education and volunteering activities around their caring role. I know that this measure has been well received in my home state, which has the highest rate per capita of carers in the country: 15½ per cent of the population. This is certainly reflected in my own electorate. During the most recent mobile member days that I've held across Lyons, many of the constituents I met with told me about their own experiences as carer for a loved one. For example, I heard from Matthew from Bridgewater. He cares full-time for his mum. Liz, from Fingal recently took on caring responsibilities for her father. And a young mum from Midway Point is supporting her husband through an illness. Some were already receiving carer payment and others were seeking information about what support might be available to them. I was so pleased to be able to tell these constituents that, under the Albanese Labor government, they will have the flexibility and support to better structure their commitments around their role as a carer, whether those be work, study or child care. The Tasmanian Council of Social Services welcomed the ability for carers to work more flexibly and to 'live their own lives without their payments being impacted'. ABS data has shown that Tassie carers earned $190 a week less than noncarers, and are also less likely to be engaged in paid employment than their non-caring counterparts. This measure will assist in removing some of the barriers to employment faced by Tasmanian carers, supporting them to better structure their work commitments, education and volunteering activities around their caring role.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the Albanese government is committed to providing more support, where it can, to those most in need. Taken together, the 2023-24 and 2024-25 budget measures represent an $11.5 billion investment to strengthen the social security safety net. This bill delivers targeted and responsible relief to some of the most vulnerable in our community. This is in addition to our government's broader cost-of-living measures: our energy bill relief for every household, capping the health indexation rate, the extended freeze on social security, paying superannuation on paid parental leave, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, strengthening Medicare and, of course, a tax cut for every taxpayer from 1 July, including bigger tax cuts for most. I'm proud to be part of a government that's committed to a strong and sustainable social security safety net, while also running a strong, sustainable and responsible economic management program. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll start by echoing some of the sentiments that were made there by the member for Lyons in relation to the importance of carers in our communities and across our country. I know that you, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as well as I and every member in this place, appreciate the role that carers play within our communities in looking after those who need support. We can only think about trying to calculate the cost of the contribution that they make. If the taxpayer ever had to bear just a fraction of that cost, it would be a very significant cost indeed. So anything we can do to support our carers should of course be strongly supported by every member of this House. That's why, amongst other aspects of it, the coalition will be supporting the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024.</para>
<para>I'll just touch on aspects of this bill, and reflect on their importance but also on why this sort of support is required in the current climate. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Social Security Act, the family assistance act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act to provide additional support to renters by increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent.</para>
<para>I'm sure, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, that your electorate is no different to mine in that we are facing a rental crisis at the moment. If any people who are listening have been experiencing this themselves and have been to an open home of a rental property within their electorate, they will have seen the line going down the street. Unfortunately those who are lucky enough to secure tenure within a rental are facing escalating costs. Unfortunately that is very much a symptom of the failure over many years—and I'm not pointing the finger exclusively here at the current government but at our state governments as well, who have primary carriage of housing supply in this country—to ensure that we have adequate housing supply to meet the demand.</para>
<para>Of course, we know that this government is bringing in more migrants to this country than we've seen for quite a while. It's absolutely critical that we ensure that we get the broader housing supply piece correct and not just try to deal with the symptoms as opposed to dealing with the underlying source of the problem. But certainly we support the measure to increase rental assistance, given the current shortfall and the general cost-of-living pressure that locals are facing.</para>
<para>I'll share some stories from within my electorate. Out in the Redlands, I've got a number of constituents who've contacted me over the course of recent weeks to share their experiences of dealing with the rental market at the moment. Nancy from Cleveland emailed me to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We were previously home owners, however with the increase in property prices in this area have not been able to buy back in—</para></quote>
<para>that is, they were not able to buy back into the market when they sold their property. She says that renting has been one of the most stressful things that they've ever endured in their lives, even more stressful than the increase in the groceries and the utilities that they've been facing recently. She says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We find ourselves every 6 months waiting nervously to find out if our owners will renew our lease or whether we need to pack up our 5 person family and find somewhere new to live which may be smaller or more expensive or may be in a new area, which adds the stress of potentially having to relocate our kids to new schools and new daycare and kindy. All of this in a market where rentals are more expensive and at an all time shortage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have tried to secure longer term leases … but our owners are no longer keen on this as they want to continue to increase the rent as much as they can and keep their options open to increase the rent for new tenants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We still want to buy back into the Redlands, however we need more time and want to ideally stay in one place until we can afford to buy back in. The stress of uncertainty around our rental is huge for us and our kids.</para></quote>
<para>You can sense the desperation there in those words, and certainly this support will be more than welcome.</para>
<para>Mark from Victoria Point outlined some of the increases that he's been facing in his rent recently. A couple of years ago, he was paying rent of $375 a week. This went up to $600 in one jump, then it went to $640, and now it's up to $680. That's from $375 to $680 within this term of parliament. You can certainly get the sense of why people are hurting out there. Yvonne from Thornlands told me that her rent has gone up $225 a week from just a couple of years ago.</para>
<para>I've got another email here from Christine from Alexandra Hills. She talks about the position that she and her mother are in, in the current rental crisis. She says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My mother is 83 years old and has mobility issues. She cannot climb stairs, walk comfortably on sloping driveways or climb in/out of a bath …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For over 5 months we have been trying to find somewhere else to live.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have been couch surfing at a friend's place for these past few months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am in a catch 22 position, because I don't earn enough, I can't get a rental. For me to try and get another job will be difficult because I don't have a home.</para></quote>
<para>You can see how this sort of pattern makes it very difficult for an individual like Christine to get ahead, particularly with looking after her mother. That comes to another aspect of the bill that I'll touch on shortly. She makes this very salient comment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How are honest hard-working citizens in this country supposed to put a roof over our head? Especially when the rentals are rising at ridiculous rates and wages aren't keeping in line.</para></quote>
<para>That's very, very true. That's the experience. I won't read out all the list of emails I've gotten on this topic, but you get the sense that that rental assistance increase will certainly be welcome.</para>
<para>As I mentioned, we've got to deal with the underlying cause here. We can't just put a bandaid on it with an increase in rental assistance, because, of course, that's going to force rental prices up even further. But it is going to assist those who are at the lower end of the spectrum and are absolutely in dire, desperate need at the moment. But we've got to deal with more supply and we've got to tackle that seriously, and I encourage the government to really step up their efforts to try to get more housing supply in this country. Part of that, of course, is getting the states and local governments on board with planning reform and tax reform. In my maiden speech I spoke a bit about the need to really tackle that at a federal level and about putting some money on the table to ensure that we get the sort of uniform reform that we actually need.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to extend the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single recipients who have an assessed partial capacity to work of 10 to 14 hours per week due to physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment. Despite the barriers to work faced by recipients with a partial capacity to work up to 14 hours per week, this group does not qualify for a higher rate of JobSeeker payment, based on their reduced capacity to work. Recipients with a partial capacity to work up to 14 hours remain on payments for almost twice as long as those without a partial capacity to work and have, on average, only nine per cent of reported earnings each fortnight. This group may also be unable to qualify for the disability support pension, which is, of course, paid at a higher rate. So this is a very welcome measure to try to get that extra support to people, particularly in these difficult times. Currently, I'm advised that the higher rate is $816.90 by per fortnight, which is available to single recipients with dependent children, as well as to single recipients aged 55 or over receiving JobSeeker for nine or more continuous months. According to the government, of those who will benefit from this measure, 36 per cent are women, 34 per cent are in regional and remote areas of Australia and 14 per cent are Indigenous Australians. It's good that that support is heading to some of our more disadvantaged regions and cohorts.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill is probably the most welcome element of it. The bill amends the Social Security Act and the Administration Act to improve access to paid work for carer payment recipients by increasing flexibility in the circumstances a carer may temporarily cease providing care without losing qualification. This includes changing the 25 hours per week work limit to 100 hours over a four-week settlement period and removing the restriction on education and volunteering activities from the participation limit. The government has indicated that this action is to provide greater flexibility for carer payment recipients, allowing them to restructure their work commitments around their caring role before losing the payment. In a measure that will particularly assist those carers living in regional and remote Australia, travel time, as well as education and volunteering activities, will no longer be counted in the participation limit. I think that's an incredibly welcome move.</para>
<para>We need greater flexibility in this system to allow people who don't necessarily tick all the boxes and fit those very limited criteria to be able to access support. You shouldn't be disadvantaged, particularly if you consider circumstances such as where an individual may be going through quite challenging health problems and may end up having bouts when they're completely out of action and other bouts when they're actually fairly good to work. We should be encouraging people to try to take up that opportunity to work when they've got the opportunity to do so. I think it's a fairer approach. I think that there are going to be many people, and we've heard a lot of stakeholders calling for this for quite a while. It's a positive development that it has been accepted by the government, and we are going to proceed on that basis. Certainly, I've got a lot of constituents in my neck of the woods who've contacted me to try to ensure that we get some sort of averaging. It's not an unrealistic level of averaging. It's the same number of hours; we're just putting it out across a four-week period, as opposed to insisting that certain standards are met each week. That's not how life works, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz. You know as well as anyone that people can be out of action from one week to the next, and things can certainly change, particularly for carers, who do so much within our community. It's, I think, a very welcome measure.</para>
<para>This measure also includes a six-month suspension period for recipients who work over the limit. If circumstances change, they will not need to reapply to access the carer payment and will also retain their pension concession card. Carers, who are predominantly women, will benefit if caring for those with conditions that fluctuate or are episodic.</para>
<para>These measures also provide flexibility in how carers can use the 63 days of respite that they're entitled to. I think that's another important aspect if we've got carers who are able to drop out temporarily and suspend but not have to start again. Unfortunately, sometimes people are coming in and out of caring situations. It may well be a husband and wife sharing caring duties of an elderly parent or a child. It's great that we will have that flexibility. I think it underscores what we're actually trying to achieve through this system.</para>
<para>So I think this bill is certainly going to be a step in the right direction. The coalition will be supporting the bill. We hope that it will have some sort of positive impact. Of course, it's not the be-all and end-all. There are many problems in this nation and in this economy that we need to sort out. However, as a first step towards addressing some of the symptoms of the problems, we welcome this initiative.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased that the previous speaker in this debate has recognised that we do indeed need more housing supply, and I look forward to their support for initiatives in the future. I lament, though, that we have not seen this level of enthusiasm and understanding of the issue that housing supply is an issue earlier in this parliament.</para>
<para>On the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024, though, this is an important piece of legislation that is part of our government's plan to deliver targeted assistance to further strengthen Australia's social security safety net, which is something we should both be proud of and always work hard to protect. In the 2024-25 budget, we're investing $2 billion to provide more support to the social safety net with changes to income support. This funding package is made up of the following measures: $1.9 billion to increase the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent; $41.2 million to extend the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single recipients with a partial capacity to work less than 15 hours per week; and $18.6 million to change the 25-hour-per-week-participation rule for carer payment recipients to instead allow up to 100 hours over a four-week settlement period. These measures respond in part to recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee that met ahead of the budget and provided this feedback.</para>
<para>These measures also build on our government's income support measures from last year's budget, including increasing the working age and student payments by $40 per fortnight, expanding eligibility to the higher rate of JobSeeker for people aged 55 and over who have been on a payment for nine months or more, expanding eligibility for parenting payment single until the youngest child turns 14, and increasing Commonwealth rent assistance maximum rates by 15 per cent. These measures of last year's budget and this year's budget together represent an $11.5 billion investment to strengthen the social safety net.</para>
<para>Our government is working for all Australians. With the measures in this year's budget, we're providing responsible cost-of-living relief that eases pressure on people and doesn't add to inflation. We are really determined to do what we can to make sure that households don't feel the pinch of the economic circumstances that we see right around the world. The measures in this bill are complemented by our new power bill relief, cheaper medicines, strengthening Medicare initiatives and, of course, the delivery of a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer on 1 July this year, and 1 July is not far away now. That tax cut will include a tax cut for every single one of the 81,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Chisholm.</para>
<para>In 2024-25 alone, it's estimated that over $143 billion will be spent on social security and family payments. Our government knows that access to secure and affordable housing has significant social, economic and personal benefits. We understand that people are still struggling with high rental costs, largely due to the fact, as the previous contributor recognised, that we have a housing supply issue in this country. Of course, we are taking measures to address that through our housing packages, but in this bill our government will increase Commonwealth rent assistance maximum rates by a further 10 per cent. This will assist recipients with more support to manage rental pressure, and this builds on the increases in our previous budget, providing the first back-to-back increases to rent assistance in over 30 years. I know that this is very welcome relief for communities right across Australia, including mine in Chisholm. This further increase means that, combined with indexation, by 20 September this year maximum rates of rent assistance will have increased by over 40 per cent since our government was elected in May 2022. Regular indexation will be applied on top on the same day.</para>
<para>The minister has stated that rental assistance is the most effective policy lever the government has to target and provide immediate assistance for low-income households in private rentals. It's important to acknowledge that our government's latest measure here will assist with cost-of-living relief for close to a million households, including more than 205,000 recipients in my home state of Victoria and 3,905 households in Chisholm.</para>
<para>It's only Labor government that understand and act when it comes to delivering for vulnerable Australians, which is why the second measure delivered by this bill will extend eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker to single recipients who have been assessed being able to work only up to 14 hours per week owing to a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment. Through this measure, additional assistance will be targeted to recipients with a significantly reduced capacity to work, recognising the barriers they face to supplement their income with earnings from work and financial strain that this can create. This measure will bring around 4,700 additional recipients onto the higher rate of JobSeeker payment, and will be better reflective of and acknowledge their needs and circumstances as they relate to daily living costs.</para>
<para>As a government, we've always taken the view that we're committed to providing more support where it can be extended to those most in need, and where it is responsible and affordable to do so. In addition to the measures outlined, our government is providing $18.6 million over five years to change the 25-hours-per-week limit for carer payment recipients. Our changes will mean that people can work up to 100 hours of work over a four-week settlement period. Importantly, our changes mean travel time, education and volunteering activities will no longer be counted in the participation limit. We know that travel time changes will particularly assist carers living in remote and regional areas who are more likely to travel further distances to access employment. This increased flexibility will help facilitate a more nuanced approach and allow carers—who, we know, are predominantly women—greater flexibility for carer payment recipients across Australia. This will allow carers more choice when it comes to balancing caring responsibilities with other commitments, including education or volunteering activities. Under current rules, carer payments can be cancelled if the 25-hours-per-week limit is exceeded. We know, based on the most recent data, that around 31,000 carer payment recipients currently report employment earnings and may benefit from these changes.</para>
<para>As well as greater flexibility, this measure also introduces a six-month suspension period for recipients who work over the new flexible limit, meaning that, if their circumstances change, they won't need to reapply to access the carer payment. Significantly, recipients of carer payments will also retain their concession cards throughout this period.</para>
<para>Carers Australia, the wonderful national peak body representing 2.65 million unpaid carers, has been calling for a review of the 25-hour rule for more than 10 years, and I thank them for their fierce advocacy over the last decade. Carers Australia has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Carers have repeatedly stated the rules around the Carer Payment have contributed to ongoing disadvantage. The Albanese Labor Government's announcement to relax the rules and allow more flexibility in the hours that carers work, study or volunteer over a four-week period, is a significant step towards mitigating the disadvantage.</para></quote>
<para>Our changes respond to recommendations in the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee's 2024-25 report, and align with the roadmap outlined in the September 2023 employment white paper. They also respond to the 2020 Productivity Commission inquiry into mental health.</para>
<para>Our changes have been called for by a range of stakeholders, advocacy groups and recipients of carer payments. As a result of this bill, we know that meaningful differences will be felt in the lives of recipient. Combined with a higher rate of energy supplement, a single JobSeeker payment recipient with a capacity to work of less than 15 hours per week will receive at least an additional $54.90 per fortnight in support. A single person with three children receiving the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance will receive an additional $25.06 per fortnight in rent assistance. A single JobSeeker payment recipient living alone who has been assessed as having a partial capacity to work of less than 15 hours receiving the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance will receive at least an additional $73.70 per fortnight in total. A carer payment recipient is now able to take up work more flexibly to suit their caring needs and to participate in study or volunteering to set up employment opportunities once their caring obligations cease.</para>
<para>These are meaningful and responsible changes that we are making for Australians right across the country. We know these measures provide responsible relief and extend to some of the most vulnerable in our community. Since our government was elected just over two years ago now, the basic single rate of JobSeeker payment has increased by $120 per fortnight, or 18.7 per cent, providing over $3,100 in additional support each year. This is the largest nominal increase in a two-year period ever and the largest in real terms in more than 40 years. These are meaningful changes. Our government believes that strong and sustainable social security that leaves no-one behind is vital to be delivered by good governments. I think it's very encouraging that the parliament is broadly in support of these changes to ensure that we are able to build a better future that leaves no Australian behind.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak in favour of the second reading of the Social Services and other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. The member for Deakin, our lead speaker on this, has articulated that the coalition will support this bill that effectively puts in place a range of measures that were announced in the budget, particularly around increases to rental assistance and expansion of eligibility for a number of supports that are an important part of the social safety net that we have in this country.</para>
<para>But it is disappointing that, despite what the measures in this bill will do, they won't come anywhere near close to helping close the gap that has opened up so dramatically around cost-of-living pressures for all Australians since this government came to power, not only those who will receive assistance through the measures in this bill but more broadly. I remind the House that, since coming to power, the increases have been quite dramatic on pretty important elements of the household budget. Food is up by 11 per cent, housing is up 40 per cent, rents are up 13 per cent, electricity is up 20 per cent, gas is up 25 per cent, health is up 11 per cent, education is up 11 per cent and financial insurance is up 15 per cent. We know that inflation has been running rampant under this government. Those dramatic increases have brought about serious impacts around the kitchen table. When families are getting together and talking about what they'll do and how they'll make ends meet as all these cost are going up, they have to make significant sacrifices and difficult decisions. They have to cancel family holidays and pare back on some of the pleasures that bring families together, such as maybe going out for a meal together as a family at the local pub every Friday night or whatever the things are that people do that, unfortunately, with all these other cost pressures and the dramatic increase in their costs versus their income earning, they cannot do as much as they used to be able to with their pay packets. That's putting a lot of pressure on families.</para>
<para>Its disappointing that the government's not really addressing any of the fundamental drivers of that, because inflation is now going up again.</para>
<para>The monthly figures, which I recognise use a slightly different methodology to the quarterly ones, now have inflation accelerating again and, ss the shadow Treasurer pointed out in the debate earlier in the chamber, we have the stickiest inflation. Of course that's very concerning for people on a mortgage. It was very concerning to hear the evidence of the Reserve Bank governor today in Senate estimates. She was talking about the fact that the Reserve Bank will, if need be, continue to increase interest rates. It will have to do that if the government isn't providing the support on the fiscal side that's necessary to help take the pressure off the inflationary forces in our economy right now.</para>
<para>There are lots of mixed messages coming from the government about what they're doing. I think in one of his answers today, the Treasurer talked about the merit of the budget playing an expansionary role because GDP had come in at such a disappointing read today: 0.1 per cent for the quarter. And there were others talking about how fiscally responsible the government is being and how contractionary they are by having a surplus in the current year. These conflicting messages are very confusing, because they leave the Reserve Bank in a difficult position if it has to do all the heavy lifting in taking on the most concerning destruction of people's wealth and capital—inflation. It's absolutely insidious.</para>
<para>The measures in this bill are supported by the coalition; of course, this bill is talking about providing support for some of the most vulnerable Australians right now. But the best support this government could give is to address inflation properly through the policy settings available to the government. That's because anything, any benefit that comes from this bill, is going to be completely eroded away if we continue on the pathway that we're on right now. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. The previous speaker, the member for Sturt, actually served in the last government. He was elected in 2019, and his government did such a great job in his electorate that he got a 7.4 per cent swing against him in his electorate on a two-party preferred basis. That's how good an economic job his government did for the people of South Australia and for Sturt, in the suburbs of Adelaide. So he shouldn't give us lectures about economic performance! When the coalition was in last in power, inflation was over six per cent and it's in the mid-threes now with us.</para>
<para>We know people are doing it tough—we know that! But the coalition mucked up their response to the global financial crisis when we were last in government, and wouldn't support infrastructure and cost-of-living relief after the first tranche. And then when it came to COVID, they spent money willy-nilly: $20 billion dollars was just thrown away. Seriously, they shouldn't give us lectures on economic responsibility and management when they ran up massive deficits and massive debts.</para>
<para>This legislation before the chamber is about providing much-needed relief from the cost of living. I would have more faith in the opposition if they had actually bothered to vote for energy relief when it came up last time. When we sought support for making cost-of-living relief measures in this chamber, those opposite sat on the benches to vote no. So I'm pleased today that they're actually going to vote yes; it's one of those rare occasions when the coalition is actually going to support a cost-of-living relief measure. It's almost a hallelujah, because those opposite have not supported virtually any of those at any stage in the last two years. We're providing support here, but they said when they were in government: 'Wage increases? Don't like those!' and 'Don't like those,' when they're in opposition. So, Member for Sturt, don't give us lectures here about how this is going to be sucked up by inflation, when inflation was nearly twice as high under you and when you won't support energy price relief or wage increases.</para>
<para>This legislation is very important because it provides relief for those who are battling. And, of course, we increased rent assistance by 15 per cent in the last budget and by 10 per cent in this budget. Those opposite had at least nine budgets. They had a MYEFO as well every year. They could have done this stuff when they were in government, but they never had the wit or wisdom to do it. But, in opposition, they've had a sort of conversion experience and now they're supporting it. It's great to see that they've found the need to support low- and middle-income people as well as people battling away. This might seem like a big title, but it will have a real impact on people in my electorate and around the country, including in the member for Sturt's electorate—the preacher for those opposite. The bloke has got economic responsibility all over him, yet he can't bring himself to vote for cost-of-living relief when given an opportunity.</para>
<para>We got elected in May 2022, and we've been working pretty well every day during that time to help people as we battle inflation, which has gone around the Western world. The measures in this bill add to the power relief support we provided, the cheaper medicines, the freeze on social security deeming rates, the strengthening of Medicare, the tripling of the bulk-billing rate and the delivery of tax cuts that everyone is going to get from 1 July this year. Those opposite first wanted an election. Then they were going to roll it back. Then they voted for it. They never talk about it, but they grudgingly support it. They've got a strange attitude, because people earning up to around $45,000 a year would have got nothing under them. They would have received no support whatsoever in terms of tax relief. But, in my electorate, 80,000 people are getting tax relief, and 72,000 of them are getting more than they would have got if the member for Sturt's side of politics had won the last election. So we're providing about $1,380 per annum of additional assistance.</para>
<para>This legislation builds on a comprehensive cost-of-living relief package, which I've started to outline. We're investing $2 billion to provide more support in the social safety net, with changes to income support. I want to go specifically to what's in this bill. It provides $1.9 billion to increase the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent. As I said before, it was 15 per cent in the last budget and it's 10 per cent this time. We're providing $41.2 million to extend the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single recipients with a partial capacity to work less than 15 hours a week. That's a very good social justice measure. There's $18.6 million to change the 25-hour-per-week participation rule for carer payment recipients to instead allow 100 hours over a four-week settlement period. That's a reality measure which affects people, because they have flexible work and life arrangements. So this is a good thing.</para>
<para>The 10 per cent increase in the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance is very, very important. In Queensland, 238,710 households will benefit from that. In my electorate of Blair, around Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs region, 12,630 households will benefit. That builds on the previous amount. We're taking the maximum rate to over 40 per cent higher than it was in May 2022. In nine years of those opposite, there was nothing. They did nothing in this area. The government's extending the eligibility for the higher JobSeeker rate for those with an assessed partial capacity to work between zero and 14 hours per week so that those with barriers to employment who aren't able to work due to their condition and do not qualify for the disability support pension can receive an additional $52.20 a fortnight. That benefits over 1,045 people in the state of Queensland. That is a really good measure to help people.</para>
<para>We're making some changes to the participation limit for carer payment to allow more flexibility in the hours carers work, study or volunteer over a four-week period as well as changes to the temporary cessation of care days which provide respite. Around 31,000 carer payment recipients currently report employment earnings and may benefit from their ability to work more flexibly. Think about that—31,000. Tonight they'll watch the State of Origin. Think of the crowd there. Visualise 31,000 people. That's the number of people with the capacity to benefit from this measure. With these changes to income support, the government is providing around $2 billion over the forward estimates to strengthen the social safety net. Those opposite did nothing for nine years. These measures were informed by a very good committee. I have a huge respect for Jenny Macklin, a former minister in the previous Labor government. I worked closely with her in the area of Indigenous affairs and social security, and she had a great attitude to social security reform. She has had a long-time commitment to social justice, and she chaired the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which recommended these measures. We're making huge changes in this area.</para>
<para>In addition, as part of the employment white paper, the government has delivered two immediate actions for pension and income support recipients. It has permanently enhanced the work bonus for pensioners over the age pension age. I've had so many constituents come and talk to me about that issue, so I'm really pleased about that. We're doubling the employment income nil rate period to 12 fortnights to reduce barriers for income support recipients to take up work by allowing them to retain concession cards and other supplementary benefits for a longer period when they first get back into employment. So these changes are delivering a strong and sustainable safety net but they're also social justice measures.</para>
<para>One of the reasons I'm a member of the Labor Party, and proud of it, is our longstanding commitment to a strong and sustainable social security safety net. It's so important. My parents, and my grandparents before them, didn't get access to the kinds of social security supports being delivered by the Labor government. I think of the stories that my grandmother and my mother told me. I grew up in pretty tough circumstances, and so did my family. I think of the lack of social security payments—the lack of what we call child support. We didn't get that support, so when we got Medibank, now called Medicare, when Bill Hayden was the social security minister, it made a big difference to our lives. Pay rises made a big difference to our lives. Any form of social security made a big difference to our lives in a working-class community in a working-class suburb in Ipswich. These are the things I'm proudest of as a Labor member of parliament.</para>
<para>I'm so pleased we're making these changes, because they are about the kind of Australia I want, where everyone gets a chance, where no-one is left behind and everyone gets an opportunity. It doesn't matter where you live—whether you live in Riverview; Ipswich, where I live; Springfield; the Somerset region—you get access to Commonwealth rent assistance if you need it. You get flexibility in your family situation, your work-life balance, when you need it. You get access to pension indexation—which those opposite think is a waste of money, and rail against—when you need it. They're the kinds of changes that Labor governments make. They are what motivates so many on this side of the aisle, because we have lived it. We know the difference a strong and sustainable safety net will make in the lives of people in our communities, because it made a difference to our lives. Changes that Labor governments make are always on the side of the battlers—the poor, the weak and the oppressed in the biblical sense—and that's what this change is about. I commend the minister for this legislation, because I know that in my community tens of thousands of people will be better off because this Labor government is passing this kind of legislation to provide a better life for everyone who needs it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>According to Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service, it's not right that in Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, vulnerable people are going without the help they desperately need. As I rise to speak to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 I do so with the full confidence that my electorate of North Sydney could not agree more with Dr Goldie. It's shocking to reflect on the fact that right now in Australia more than three million people are living below the poverty line. That's one in every 10 Australians.</para>
<para>Even more shocking is that a huge portion of these people are there because they're trying to survive on the paltry social service payments our federal government currently offers. I acknowledge that this is not a circumstance that has been created by our current government; rather, it is the consequence of a decade of dismissal, disrespect and minimisation. I was devastated to hear the commentary that aired on Sunday night on Channel 7, during their <inline font-style="italic">Spotlight</inline> program, when a young Australian who is dedicated to poverty reduction whilst living on a disability pension herself reported that one in three of the people who took their own lives last year were on some form of social security payment. How can that be possible in this the luckiest of countries?</para>
<para>When I looked further, I found the following. As of April 2024, over 800,000 people were on JobSeeker in Australia. Many of these will have been among the 1.3 million households who were receiving Commonwealth rent assistance in April 2022. They may also have been among the 60,000 people who were receiving private rental assistance from a state or territory government. This is not one group or type of person. Those who currently access these payments can be as young as 16 or as mature as 65. Seventeen per cent of First Nations people over the age of 15 are currently accessing these payments, compared to 3.4 per cent of other Australians. Meanwhile, people aged 16 and over living in remote areas are five times more likely to be receiving unemployment payments as those living in major cities.</para>
<para>So what are these people actually receiving? Well, a single person with no children on full JobSeeker will receive $762.70 per fortnight, while a single person with a dependent child or children will receive $816.90. That's the same amount that someone who is single, over 55 and has nine months of continuous payments will receive, while those who are partnered receive $698.30 per fortnight. Meanwhile, data from CoreLogic released in April 2024 shows that national median advertised market rents are at a record high level, costing $627 per week. This cost has grown at a rate of 9.1 per cent a year over the past three years.</para>
<para>Running those numbers, you don't need to be an actuary to know that a considerable number of these people must be living hand-to-mouth, with severe housing stress. While most Australians are struggling through a cost-of-living crisis right now, we must recognise that there is an ocean of need. While this government is at least doing something, the truth is that the something is the equivalent to stirring a teaspoon of sugar into it.</para>
<para>The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 does add more support to the social safety net, but the net remains riddled with holes. While the bill delivers minor positive investment, all in all it has missed the opportunity to address the deepest, fundamental societal challenges. The government itself has identified that Australians are facing a set of serious and compounding challenges, including a slowing economy, rising unemployment, falling spending power, a housing crisis and a climate crisis. The <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational report</inline> released last year shone a light on the barriers to economic inclusion and participation in Australia for underrepresented and historically disadvantaged groups. These include women, who continue to face barriers to finding a job or working the hours they would prefer, with a key barrier being unpaid work and caring responsibilities, particularly for those with younger children.</para>
<para>Under the measures being introduced, just 4,700 Australians will be eligible for the higher rate of JobSeeker payment—4,700 Australians from a pool that currently contains 1.3 million people. Others will receive the rental assistance increase, which is offered at a rate of 25 per cent, adding the last two years together, in a market that has grown 27 per cent in three years. Yet others will explore the flexibility for carer payment recipients. But, ultimately, people on the lowest incomes in our country expected and deserved more from this budget. In the words of the Australian Council of Social Service, this budget 'has a hole in its heart'. It's not enough for the 100,000 Australians who remain homeless on any given night, the single mother who stays in a violent home because the alternative is poverty, people with a disability who are struggling to gain employment, or the carers for young children who are facing barriers re-entering the workforce. The budget is about choice, and the government has chosen to not go further when it comes to lifting Australians out of poverty. I stand with sector stakeholders in calling for meaningful investment to prioritise the needs of vulnerable Australians and address the inadequacy of our social support payments.</para>
<para>Looking deeper into the bill, the Commonwealth rent assistance increase, due to be implemented from 20 September this year, provides an additional nominal support for nearly a million recipient households, yet the real rate of this payment will arguably not make a dent in the rapidly increasing rental prices. In true dollar terms, these households will receive an increase of up to $18.80 for a single person or up to $25.06 per fortnight for families, depending on the household type. That extra $25 per fortnight for families is in a market where, in my seat of North Sydney, the rental property I recently vacated with my children was offered to the incoming family at a whopping $200 more per week than I had paid. Indeed, in my electorate of North Sydney the average weekly rent has risen 17½ per cent, to $700, with houses renting at $1,200 a week. This level of rent is simply unachievable for everyday Australians, let alone those reliant on social service payments for support, and far too many people will still be without affordable homes after this budget.</para>
<para>For some time, housing and welfare experts have been calling for changes to be made to the Commonwealth rent assistance payments, and the Productivity Commission itself recently recommended the government review Commonwealth rent assistance as a priority. They argued that there's a strong case for changes to improve its adequacy and targeting. But there is no improvement to adequacy or targeting in the measures included in this bill. Meanwhile, ACOSS offers the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The modest Commonwealth Rent Assistance increase builds on last year's rise, giving a single person an extra $9.40 a week if they're receiving the maximum rate. Based on median rents, private renters receiving JobSeeker or Youth Allowance will still be in deep housing stress because their base rate of payment is so low. Even with the increase, they will be paying half of their income in rent alone.</para></quote>
<para>Bringing this into the real world, then, someone in North Sydney recently shared with me that: 'The present housing crisis places me, like hundreds of thousands of Australians, at imminent risk of homelessness at the age of 73.' This person is a lifetime resident. They've had a successful career, carried their weight, contributed to our society and paid their taxes. They should never be in a vulnerable position like this, a position that a 10 per cent rise in Commonwealth rental assistance is unlikely to address.</para>
<para>Ultimately, while I wish I could say otherwise, the government has failed to take the bold action required to address the housing crisis, effectively maintaining current inadequate funding levels for the national agreement for another five years when there is huge demand for social housing. It is a huge concern that this budget did not include any new funding for social housing. In the words of Everybody's Home, a national campaign to fix this housing crisis:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What the government has announced is a business as usual spend that is nowhere near enough to shift the dial on the housing crisis …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government's 'new' funding for social housing is a repackaging of existing initiatives, offering loans instead of providing real funding, and the continuation of a funding agreement with the states and territories—something the Commonwealth routinely renews for other essential services like education and health.</para></quote>
<para>The safety net is simply not being spread anywhere near wide enough to support those on income support payments.</para>
<para>It's a concern that Commonwealth rent assistance is only available to people in receipt of income support or an amount of family tax benefit over the base rate of family tax benefit part A and not to other people on low incomes who are renting privately. Meanwhile, high rents and unaffordable housing are driving essential workers out of the North Sydney electorate. When I met with midwives at a significant hospital in my area recently, I learnt that staff shortages are exacerbated by staff moving away to find more affordable rentals. The desperation felt by Australians, both young and old, in the current environment is something I feel very deeply.</para>
<para>Finally, the fact that the maximum rate of this payment has been indexed to CPI rather than the average rents paid by Commonwealth rent assistance recipients is frustrating and makes no sense to me. Increases in rents are outstripping general inflation in many areas of Australia. This is a systematic issue in need of serious attention. Earlier this year, I moved a motion that asked the House to take note of the fact that the routine CPI indexation that took effect lifted JobSeeker payments by just 96c per day. This indexation lifted JobSeeker payments to $55 a day, which equates to less than half the full-time minimum wage. The government's media release at the time announced these changes as 'Indexation puts more in the pockets of millions of Australians'. Yet it failed to acknowledge that income support payments are not enough to cover the cost of essential goods and services, including housing, food and energy. Devastatingly, I see similar headlines when it comes to the measures introduced in this bill.</para>
<para>The government claims it's easing the cost-of-living pressures through the JobSeeker measures I have now explained. But these changes do not even cover half a per cent of the population who need it. Last year saw the establishment of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The committee's role is to provide independent advice to the government before every federal budget on economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage. Tasked with this role by this government, along with other key welfare organisations, that committee has specifically recommended the JobSeeker payment be lifted to 90 per cent of the value of the age pension as the most effective way to tackle poverty. Yet, in this most recent budget, that advice was ignored, and the measures introduced in this bill are nowhere near such an increase.</para>
<para>Seven in 10 people on income support are eating less and reporting difficulty getting essential medicine and care because their incomes are inadequate. The situation we see ourselves in deteriorates daily. When coupled with poor services and stigma around receiving these payments, the inadequacy of the JobSeeker payment is truly damaging.</para>
<para>The truth is that the changes in this legislation are entirely insufficient to prevent the widespread distress experienced by income support recipients in the current economic climate. The concept of a carer payment as an income support payment for those providing constant care to someone with a disability or a medical condition, or for an adult who is frail or aged, is something I support strongly. This deserves more attention than it has been given in these new measures. The care and support economy is one of the fastest-growing parts of the Australian economy, and yet the care sector is gravely underresourced and overburdened. The current rules around the carer payment have contributed to ongoing disadvantage, and the changes in this bill to relax the rules and improve flexibility in the hours that carers work, study or volunteer over a four-week period will mitigate some of the disadvantage being experienced. But the real disadvantage is on the level of support being provided to carers.</para>
<para>For the 2.65 million carers in Australia, the current maximum basic rate for individuals on a carer payment is $1,020.60 per fortnight. That's just $510 per week for someone who is providing constant care and is limited to 25 hours of work per week, or 100 hours of work over the four-week settlement period under the new rules. It's not going to get anyone anywhere with rent or basic needs such as grocery, energy bills and transport costs—certainly not in my seat of North Sydney. I must point out that 71 per cent of the carer payment recipients are female, and that makes this a gendered issue. While I understand that the government introduced a draft national strategy for the care and support economy earlier this year, and that the reform agenda is reportedly underway, I urge the government to expedite these initiatives. The situation is becoming increasingly desperate, and far more needs to be done to address the gaps in the care sector.</para>
<para>My community will continue to advocate for these reforms. Everyone deserves respect and a fair go, no matter their background. We can have a healthy, productive, thriving and inclusive society, but to achieve this we must address the root cause of disadvantage; look for ways to ensure economic and social inclusion for all; and provide an adequate social security safety net. The recent budget was an opportunity for this government to take brave and courageous action to address the root causes—causes identified by the government itself. But the measures being introduced through this bill today, while welcomed, will fall well short of delivering the solutions that have also already been identified. Australians will not be lifted out of poverty by these initiatives until we show the bravery required to move beyond bandaid solutions and meet the challenges of the future head-on.</para>
<para>While this bill is a small step forward, I will reiterate the point that the budget is about choice, and that the government has chosen not to go further when it comes to lifting Australians out of poverty.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank all the members who have participated in this debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024.</para>
<para>This bill includes measures to deliver targeted assistance to provide responsible cost-of-living relief for income support recipients and further strengthen Australia's social security safety net. Built on the government safety net measures in the last budget, it will further increase the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent. By 20 September 2024, when this measure is due to commence, and combined with indexation, the maximum rate of rental assistance will have increased by over 40 per cent since the government was elected. Regular indexation will also be applied on the same day. This is a significant increase, and it is helping; the ABS has shown that the government's booster rent assistance in the last budget has directly taken pressure off CPI for rents. In the year to the March quarter 2024, rental prices as measured in CPI rose 78 per cent and would have risen 9.5 per cent without our increase.</para>
<para>This bill also extends eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single recipients with a partial capacity to work of up to 14 hours per week. This recognises the barriers they face to supplement their income with earnings from work and the other financial strains that this can create. These recipients will receive at least an additional $54.90 per fortnight when combined with the energy supplement. This measure is also due to commence on 20 September 2024—the same day as regular indexation of JobSeeker to CPI, meaning that the actual increase will be higher. The measure builds on the government's changes in the last budget, including the $40 per fortnight increase to the rates of working-age and student payments, and extending the higher rate of JobSeeker to those aged 55 and over on payment for nine months or more in recognition of the barriers they too can face in getting back to work. Those people who moved from the base rate of JobSeeker to the higher rate as a result of the government's changes are more than $4,500 a year better off compared to May 2022. This is significant. It's an additional $170 in their pocket each fortnight.</para>
<para>This bill also delivers changes to the carer payment to remove barriers to employment and provide more flexibility for recipients to manage their work, study and volunteering commitments with their caring responsibilities. This is aligned with the road map outlined in the government's employment white paper. With the changes in this bill, recipients will be able to work 100 hours over a four-week settlement, rather than the current 25-hour-per-week participation limit. Education and volunteering activities will no longer be counted in the limit, and, through policy changes, we will also remove travel time from the limit. This bill also introduces a six-month suspension period for recipients who work over the new flexible limit, meaning they'll no longer be cancelled and will not need to reapply for the carer payment during this period if their circumstances change. They will also hold on to their pensioners concession card. This measure is due to commence on 20 March 2025.</para>
<para>The government's measures delivered in this bill, along with our measures in last year's budget, represent an additional $11.5 billion in spending in our social security system. In 2024-25 alone, it's estimated the government will spend $143 billion on social security and family payments. I'd like to thank the member for Deakin for his confirmation that the opposition will be supporting this bill. Of course, these are responsible, targeted measures that will provide more support to people on the lowest incomes. I did note that his speech didn't quite stick to the bill and was pretty free ranging, but I am pleased to have the confirmation that the opposition will support this bill.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to building a strong and sustainable social safety net that provides relief to those most in need when they need it. With this bill, we're continuing to deliver on our commitment. With these measures for income support recipients, complemented by further relief, we're delivering for all Australians through our comprehensive cost-of-living plan. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>103</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7176" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>103</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The reforms in this bill are necessary, significant and future-thinking. They focus on two key areas: mandatory climate reporting targets for large businesses and financial market infrastructure protection. These modernising reforms are important because we need to position the Australian economy for future economic opportunities, and building a more robust system is a key foundation for that.</para>
<para>The reform of financial market infrastructure protection is long overdue, and we can thank the former government for their decade of inaction on that. This infrastructure is the framework for crucial financial system operations such as Commonwealth and state government debt, security trading, access to liquidity and risk-management products, and the RBA's implementation of monetary policy. These changes were recommended in the 2014 financial system inquiry. In 2020 the Council of Financial Regulators again recommended giving the Reserve Bank of Australia the capacity to intervene and quickly resolve crises impacting critical financial market infrastructure. Given the GFC was a recent memory at the time, it is, quite frankly, astounding that it took the former government six years to even agree with the recommendations, and it won't surprise anyone here that they never actually got around to implementing them. That was left to a Labor government, and today the Albanese Labor government is taking action to strengthen the regulatory arrangements for Australian financial infrastructure, including the RBA and ASIC.</para>
<para>It's significant as well that these reforms follow best-practice international standards that emerged post-GFC, and are in line with recommendations from the G20 and the International Monetary Fund. Put simply, the amendments will ensure the RBA has the power to ensure continuity of clearing and settlement services during a crisis such as an IT system failure at the ASX, a cyber-attack—heaven forbid—or major international market turmoil. Clearing and settlement facilities settle transactions and securities such as bonds and equities, and in derivatives such as options and futures. These crucial functions are necessary for financial stability. A failure of a clearing and settlement facility would significantly disrupt our financial markets.</para>
<para>These reforms will ensure that the RBA can act swiftly during a crisis. There will be checks and balances in place. These powers can be enacted only when one or more conditions for resolution are met. These are distinct from the daily operational regulatory oversight and risk mitigation carried out by the RBA. The RBA will be also be able to provide up to $5 billion in support as a last resort to ensure the continuity of clearing and settlement services and to avoid financial system instability—avoiding fear effectively. In such cases, approval would be required by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, and the funds would be recoverable.</para>
<para>The amendments will also ensure that the RBA has the regulatory power to help prevent crises occurring by extending the requirements on domestic and foreign financial market licensees. These regulatory changes will provide certainty for industry, as the RBA will be able to support the market and reduce the risk of economic damage.</para>
<para>The bill includes further strengthening of clearing and settlement facilities by providing greater licensing and supervision powers to ASIC and the RBA. These include the power to give direction, to ensure fit, proper and competent person requirements, and to ensure that changes are approved by the minister or ASIC. The final regulatory changes involve transferring the minister's current daily operational supervisory powers to ASIC and the RBA.</para>
<para>The second major part of this bill's reforms is to implement mandatory climate reporting requirements for big companies. This reform is a key component of Labor's vision for an Australia that has cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy. The development of standardised and internationally aligned requirements for large companies to report climate-related risks and opportunities is another Labor election commitment that we are delivering on. The establishment of a climate risk disclosure framework will have many benefits for investors: it gives them transparency when investing in new opportunities as part of the net zero transformation; it will enhance our attractiveness when it comes to international capital investors who are keen to support Australia's energy transformation and, let's be honest, to make a buck; and, importantly, it will keep climate-related plans, risks, opportunities and accountability front of mind for large business and financial institutions. As we all know, capital have known about this risk for a very long time. They've looked on with surprise to see Australia fighting those climate wars for a decade, but capital understood risk. What this means in practice is that businesses will have to develop and report on plans to reduce emissions and to identify the effects that climate change could have on their physical assets. They will also have to report on the opportunities for expansion that the net zero transformation may present. This will support large businesses to prepare for this change.</para>
<para>The new requirements will start on 1 January next year for Australia's largest listed and unlisted companies and unlisted financial institutions. This means companies that meet two of the three following criteria: they have a consolidated revenue of more than $500 million—so not just the local corner shop—and/or consolidated gross assets of more than $1 billion and more than 500 employees. These are large businesses. We will then take a phased approach over 2026 and 2027 to bring more businesses in line with these reporting requirements. This lead-in time for preparation and then the subsequent phased approach will mean that businesses can build their internal capability to deliver high-quality reporting.</para>
<para>By 2027-28, all businesses with revenue of over $50 million or gross assets of more than $25 million and more than 100 employees will be required to report in line with the announced framework. As part of the adjustment period, the government will modify liability settings under the Corporations Act for a three-year period—the carrot rather than the stick. During this time, the regulator can take action against misleading and deceptive conduct only. The reporting requirements will be both comprehensive and ambitious. This is a key part of sustaining and growing Australia's solid reputation as a destination for international investment—and we need international investment to support our transition to net zero.</para>
<para>As the 13th-largest economy in the world, we need to lead. There are 187 other countries after us who are looking to countries like Australia to see how you can do it, especially when you're exposed to fossil fuels as Australia is. That's why the mandatory reporting will include information on scope 3 emissions. People might not know, but scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions that occur outside of the core operations of a business. For many businesses, these are the emissions that occur within the supply or value chains rather than being generated directly. The reporting requirements will assist businesses with understanding the risks associated with scope 3 emissions.</para>
<para>We know that industry broadly supports the mandatory climate reporting initiative, because we've consulted widely with industry, investors, academics and regulators. We also understand that the assurance market for sustainability disclosures is emerging, so full assurance will not be mandatory until 1 July 2030. That's why we are bolstering the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board to ensure that the assurance pathway responds to changes in industry capability and expertise.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to positioning the Australian economy and Australian businesses for a changing future. That's the best way to secure the future for Australians. It's vital to get this work underway so it can keep in line with international capital market expectations. We know that there are challenges with climate change, but we also know that there is potential for well-targeted investment in the net zero transformation. The reforms in this bill are part of Labor's broad sustainable-finance agenda. This will mean the establishment of a coherent and complete suite of regulatory powers which will provide stability and efficiency. They will ensure that we manage the risks and, more importantly, the opportunities associated with dangerous climate change. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to focus my comments tonight on the scope 3 emissions section of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 because the effects of the indirect emissions in scope 3 won't begin and end with large business. This is an entirely new and major impost on business and industry, but it will particularly impact on small and family businesses. It will actually impact on those who haven't yet realised what's ahead for them, as we've heard tonight, starting in 2027-28 but by 2030 being mandatory.</para>
<para>ASIC itself has said the compliance will be passed on to small business. It's not just large business; the compliance cost and work will be passed on to small business. ASIC itself has said so. I know the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, acknowledged by ASIC, is very concerned about the impacts of the scope 3 emissions because many of the entities that small businesses bank with, the businesses that small business supply or buy from, will have to provide the scope 3 sustainability report each financial year. But that regime forces all companies with turnover of over $50 million—it's not profit; it's turnover of over $50 million—or assets over $25 million to disclose and report annually audited and verified scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions disclosures to ASIC.</para>
<para>Scope 3 emissions are those that happen when a business sells its products, when it buys the inputs it needs to run the business, as well as reporting to financial institutions—when the banks get involved with this, which they are and will be with this legislation—that the business, the small and family business, borrows from, perhaps invests in or has lending from in different ways. This will be a mandatory reporting process for businesses with, as I said, over $50 million turnover or a $25 million asset level, which the Treasury itself has said will cost $1.3 million per business per year to comply with. That's $2.3 billion a year every year in compliance costs being passed on to small business, to both their customers and suppliers—and I think, given what we're seeing here in this place, the $2.3 billion will prove to be a conservative estimate, given the Labor government legislation we are dealing with today and what's encompassed in it. If those small businesses cannot pass on their costs of all that work—the auditing, the collecting of data—to their buyers, they will have to close; they'll have no choice. Good luck trying to get increased prices from major supermarkets or big businesses, given their market power, when you're a small business!</para>
<para>Independent research has put the cost to the economy of red tape at over $176 billion a year. The Labor government is going to add another $2.3 billion to that for business. Imagine what the reduction in the cost of living and the cost of running small and family businesses would be if that $176 billion was reduced or gone. By default, this bill simply adds another $2.3 billion at least to the $176 billion—just more complex, confusing and costly red and green tape, probably designed to keep busy the 36,000 additional public servants Labor has employed.</para>
<para>I had a discussion with a family dairy and dairy manufacturing business regarding the scope 3 emissions in this bill. It will be forced to report based on that $25 million asset threshold. The first response I got was, 'Does the Labor government want to send all businesses broke?' It's a fair call. The owner said, 'This is just the next layer of green and red tape we have to deal with, and it's costing us a fortune.' This is coming at the same time so many businesses in the south-west in manufacturing, hospitality, freight, construction and agriculture have been and are under enormous personal and financial pressure. They're struggling for workers, there's no accommodation available for workers if they can get them and the owners themselves are simply exhausted. These are the people who work in and on their business every day. We know 16,000 businesses have become insolvent in the last two years. Here are the same small businesses that are going to have to pay through the nose to provide professionally assessed, assured and audited reports on their scope 3 emissions every year to give to those bigger businesses that the previous member spoke about.</para>
<para>This additional cost is coming at a time when, according to COSBOA's Luke Achterstraat, there are a million small businesses who are not able to pay themselves properly or break even. There are 2.5 million small businesses in Australia employing almost half the private sector workforce that will be impacted. There's no doubt that these same small businesses will be in the firing line from the Environmental Defenders Office and other activists, given the Labor government's continued funding of the EDO in relation to this reporting process. Those same small businesses will have a foot on their throat and will be worried constantly and under pressure because of the threat and risk of regulatory action from ASIC, the ACCC, their banks, the businesses they're dealing with or activists.</para>
<para>How much information will actually enough for these major corporates? Will they demand what will effectively be anticompetitive information that gives them even more market power and control, by exposing the finances and cost inputs of the small businesses that supply them or buy from them? How will big corporates weaponise that information? And how many small family businesses will be at risk of being 'debanked' if they can't or don't comply? That's what we're facing here from the finance sector.</para>
<para>As we know, the major banks in Australia have an enormous amount of power already. I got an email this week from another bank that's shutting down a whole tranche of branches, some in my electorate. These banks are even going as far as charging customers to access their own money held in debit card accounts—that's your money, sitting in a debit card account, and yet you're charged to access your money that's sitting there.</para>
<para>Small and family businesses are under enormous financial and bureaucratic pressure. Already we see the same information being asked for in different ways from various agencies, over and over—local, state, federal. It is a massive, endless reporting process, each time slightly different to meet the specific demands, adding layer upon layer of cost, pressure and work for small family businesses. There are multiple and ever-increasing requests—time, money and grief for small-business owners, the ones who are working their hearts out. They're often the people who give people their first job or their last job in life. These people are time poor and are simply seeking the simple and basic right to supply to the buyer or corporation.</para>
<para>Australia's productivity has fallen, and, in global economic competitiveness rankings, Australia declined from fourth to 19th in 2023. That's actually the harm that red tape is imposing in this country. It is helping to make us less productive and far less competitive. Independent research shows that, since 2005, federal red tape has increased by 88 per cent, two-thirds greater than the national economic growth. And yet here Labor is imposing another massive increase in red and green tape.</para>
<para>I just want to look at the practical example of the layers of regulation and compliance needed in a small business. I will talk about a dairy farm, for instance. Buying, selling and finance will all have to be accounted for under scope 3, demanded by the bigger businesses. So the farmer will have to pay to have their whole business assessed and apportion their scope 3 emissions across all of their inputs, like bought-in feed, electricity, irrigation, fuel, cartage, contractors' services, repairs and maintenance, hardware, new infrastructure, fertiliser, telecommunications—you name it. They then will have to do the same to assess, apportion, audit and report their scope 3 emissions for every business they sell to. That could be the milk processor, the abattoir they sell cattle to, the supermarket or buyer of their cattle at a saleyard, the buyers of calves. They will all feed into this interconnected, elastic stream of scope 3 emissions reporting. The banks they borrow from or have investments with will demand this information from farmers and small businesses. I am really concerned about the debanking of customers that we're seeing.</para>
<para>But, of course, on a farm the circumstances change as often as the weather. I just remind people watching: no farmers, no food. The cost and compliance will be variable, onerous and obscene, in my opinion. Then I look at the small businesses that supply the dairy industry, which will have the same reporting obligations and pressures. The milk processor will have to assess, apportion, audit and report their scope 3 emissions up and down their supply, value and finance chain. The local machinery dealer will have to do the same, whether they are selling John Deere, Massey Ferguson or any other brand. These companies may well have assets over $25 million. They may have to report their scope 3 emissions up and down their individual supply and value chain. So, when you look at this, this is just extraordinary layer upon layer of regulation, red tape and endless paperwork.</para>
<para>The abattoir will have to do the same. The abattoir will have to account for all of the scope 3 emissions of every farmer supplying them with cattle and the livestock transporters who deliver the cattle to their yards. We've seen the effect that our major supermarkets have had on cattle markets and prices.</para>
<para>What about the constant seasonal changes experienced by farmers? Be it a dry season, be it times when you need to apply more fertiliser, be it the seasonal aspects of when you're seeding, doing hay or harvesting, all of these will change the reporting requirements constantly. So here we are, punishing even more small businesses—our farmers, especially the farmers who are working their land, working on greater productivity all of the time.</para>
<para>Of course, as I said, they could be supplying a range of different entities, and this goes across all different businesses. When you look across this—whether, for instance, you're selling grapes to a winery or it's the fruit and vegetables that go to a supermarket—scope 3 has to be reported. That all comes back to the supplier of those products—the individual grain growers, perhaps—with land and farming assets over the $25 million.</para>
<para>I don't know what impact this is actually going to have on local government. Will the bankers need to report their emissions to meet their obligations as well? I don't know whether the businesses that supply the projects and programs that local government tender out will have to report their scope 3 emissions and provide those sustainability reports.</para>
<para>It goes on and on. There are irrigation cooperatives and their members and customers up and down. There are businesses like Albemarle, Simcoa, Alcoa, Perkins in my patch, Doral, Fulton Hogan, Qube, Dale Alcock. All of their supply and value chains will have to be accounted for with scope 3.</para>
<para>I find that this is just an extraordinary mesh of additional requirement. It actually reminds me of a terrible elastic condition. This will filter down to all levels. It's a massive impost on small and family business, and even on the bigger businesses and the major businesses that are getting on with their business. They've got people that can do this sort of work for them. Those in small and family businesses work in their business all day, and sometimes half the night, and this type of reporting comes over and above that, plus they will have to pay. From what I can see there will be a new industry built around this, and a new bureaucracy in Canberra that will have to deal with this as well.</para>
<para>When you put it all together, I think the inclusion of scope 3 emissions and how this will filter right down from the top to the smallest business and right across the board is going to add so much cost and so many more layers of useless regulation in many terms for those small businesses that are forced to comply with it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> recently surveyed a number of climate scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What they said was nothing short of earth-shattering. Almost 80 per cent of scientists who responded to the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>'s survey indicated that they foresee at least 2½ degrees Celsius of global heating ahead, while almost half anticipate at least three degrees Celsius. Only six per cent thought the internationally agreed 1.5 degree limit would be met.</para>
<para>It's clear that all the efforts in Australia and globally that many are trying to undertake to transition to a net zero economy and keep to the Paris Agreement's targets are falling short. Let me repeat why climate scientists are so alarmed at this point that we are currently not on track to meet these internationally agreed targets. They point to the lack of political will to meaningfully do what needs to be done. The year 2023 was the warmest on record, with the earth 1.36 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1850-1900 preindustrial average level. Whether meeting the targets or not, climate change is changing how our economy functions in so many aspects. For businesses, climate related risks have financial implications. Extreme weather destroys supply chains and damages productivity, and transition risks, such as policies to phase out fossil fuels, will undermine core business. Investors need to understand how exposed a company is and identify and manage these risks. For Australia to have a resilient economy, we need the companies within that economy to be resilient businesses. The changing climate threatens the viability of some of those industries and entities, but it also presents opportunities to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to take charge of the opportunities that the net zero economy will allow us. We simply cannot put our heads in the sand any longer.</para>
<para>Deloitte's 2022 report, <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he turning point</inline>, highlighted that investment in green technologies which help us pivot to a net zero economy will unleash a transformation globally that could increase the size of the world economy by $43 trillion in net present value terms from 2021 to 2070. This bill helps align Australian entities with international corporate reporting standards, allowing credible, transparent and comparable climate related information to enable responsible investment decisions. For Australian companies to be even remotely competitive on the world stage, and to continue trading, it's vitally important for them not to face carbon border tariff adjustments.</para>
<para>They must be able to make this kind of disclosure. Accurate information is the key thing; it's essential for good decision-making in a market economy. The private sector is the major emitter of greenhouse gases. Until now, data around the risks and opportunities that climate change poses have been piecemeal and sporadic. A good disclosure resume is a fundamental step towards closing this data gap and improving the availability and accessibility of data that better indicates how companies and investors must mitigate risk and respond to opportunities. This will help ensure greater action on climate is taken and that capital is allocated more credibly to activities such as reducing extreme weather hazards, minimising pollution and investing in resilience. It's imperative that climate reporting by corporate entities in respect of the past and future be as precise as possible and comparable both here and abroad.</para>
<para>The bill before us today is one more tool in the toolbox to help shift the dial on that effort. Schedule 4 of the bill before us establishes a climate related disclosure regime for Australian companies and entities. The bill aligns Australian corporate climate related disclosure with the International Financial Reporting Standards set by the International Accounting Standards Board, encompassing climate related evidence, strategy, risk management, targets and metrics. It is important; it empowers the Australian Accounting Standards Board to develop sustainability standards, which it aims to have ready once this bill is enacted. It brings us into line with other jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand and Hong Kong, which already mandate climate related disclosures by corporate entities. It allows for a phased reporting approach, with entities classified by the size of their revenue, gross assets and employees, or whether they already report under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. They're classified as follows: group 1 is the largest entities, estimated as numbering around 723 entities. They will commence reporting from 1 January 2025. Group 2 is estimated to include about 1,117 entities and they will report from 1 July 2026—they have been provided with additional time. And group 3 is estimated to number 4,555 and will report from 1 July 2027. They have a significant amount of time to put a system in place with the ability to do this reporting. I should say that group 3 entities which do not have material climate related risks will not be required to prepare complete standardised climate disclosures. I appreciate that many in this space have made submissions and contributions relating to the possible impact on small businesses as they fit within the supply chains for larger organisations. I must say I am not surprised that, again, the members from the coalition are catastrophising the effect of this bill, making out that it's somehow going to be the end of small businesses and the agricultural sector. The reality is that we cannot compete, we cannot trade internationally, unless we get on board with the kind of disclosure that is required in the current economy internationally and from a trading point of view.</para>
<para>This is a high stakes road map, and there are still some elements that need to change in this bill. Overall it's a good bill, and we need to implement this reform as soon as possible. The price of inaction the scientists are telling us, as the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> reported a few weeks ago, is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a "semi-dystopian" future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.</para></quote>
<para>So let's be very clear: business as usual is not a possibility.</para>
<para>Nevertheless, there are parts of this bill that I believe need to be changed to maximise its effect. For me, it is a concern that the modified liability provision in this bill will encourage, I suspect, greenwashing, placing at risk the very intent of the legislation. The purpose of this bill is for accurate, comparable climate related reporting. The concern about the modified liability is that it would cause the misallocation of investment capital and compromise Australia's ability to reach its emissions reduction goal under the Paris Agreement. Section 1707D of this bill is a modified liability provision that prevents third parties from initiating civil action for false and misleading statements for three years to 2028, effectively meaning they cannot be held accountable for commitments made. This will apply also to the reporting of scope 3 emissions, scenario analysis and transition plans, and forward-looking statements for 12 months. The bill allows only ASIC to launch civil action against an entity for false or misleading sustainability statements in the first three years from the start of reporting. That realistically opens a window in which entities could make false and misleading statements without facing the threat of legal repercussions from investors or affected individuals, thus undermining the credibility of the climate related disclosures by corporate entities. Relying solely on ASIC to enforce civil action in these periods after the start date of reporting means that only the most egregious examples of false or misleading statements made in these reports are likely to be pursued, if any at all. I don't think that is good enough.</para>
<para>Many of Australia's major emitters have been reporting annually on climate related issues for around a decade. Since 2021, in response to investor demand, many ASX companies have been publishing climate transition plans, and smaller companies in groups 2 and 3 have had time to develop their capabilities due to the phased approach of the reporting requirements. In this context, we're taking a backwards step by having that provision that allows them to modify liability on climate reporting going forward.</para>
<para>Moreover, the Corporations Act already provides sufficient protections for directors. For example, under section 189 of the Corporations Act it states that a director's reliance on information or advice prepared by an employee or expert is taken to be reasonable so long as the reliance was made in good faith and the information was subject to the director's independent assessment of the information or advice having regard to the director's knowledge of the corporation and the complexity of the structure and operations of the corporation. Therefore, there is no need for the modified provisions that put a halt on accountability. Of course, compliance with legislation is essential to the rule of law. Accordingly, a better course is to amend schedule 4 of the bill by removing that section 1707D entirely. I will attend to that in the consideration-in-detail stage. The existing provisions in the Corporations Act already allow a defence for directors who pursue their duties with care and diligence. Removing section 1707D will ensure that climate related disclosures are to be treated in the same manner as financial reporting.</para>
<para>We need to pass this bill and implement the changes it will bring about. Enhancing the credibility of our reporting system will bolster business and investor confidence. This is crucial for attracting increased capital investments, which in turn will accelerate our emissions reduction. This is essential for a swifter transition to a net zero economy.</para>
<para>Keeping clause 1707D in schedule 4 creates the risk that corporations will engage in spin rather than real, accurate reporting and rather than committing to take the real action to measure, monitor and reduce their climate impact. The pace of climate change means we don't have the luxury of time to deflect, defer or obfuscate any longer. We must have accurate and transparent climate-related reporting. If we want Australian businesses and the Australian economy to be competitive in the world as it engages towards a race to net zero, it is vital that we have that climate disclosure, that we have the risk accounting, and that we make sure we do it in a diligent and accountable way.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Governments should be focused on the long term, making decisions in the best interests of citizens and setting up the rules so we're reducing our risks and pursuing our opportunities. But in this case, where we're debating the merits of a new mandatory climate reporting requirement, the government is catching up to what much of the investment community and the corporate sector has realised and acted upon for years—that is, the long-term efficient allocation of capital depends on a good understanding of climate risk.</para>
<para>So what does the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 actually do? Well, it's an omnibus bill that combines two completely unrelated changes into one piece of legislation. We've seen a few of these lately; often, they can be used as a wedge when something controversial is combined with something innocuous. Luckily, I don't think that's the case here.</para>
<para>Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the bill implement the recommendations of the Council of Financial Regulators' advice-to-government report which was delivered in July 2020. The schedules relate to our financial market infrastructures, which are like the plumbing of the financial system. The reforms contained in the bill have been recommended by various reports to government going back to 2015. The first reform introduces a crisis management and resolution regime for Australia's financial market infrastructure, which means the RBA can resolve a crisis in a clearance-and-settlement facility if the crisis is likely to pose a threat to the Australian financial system. This seems wholly appropriate. The bill also transfers the current ministerial powers for licencing and supervision to ASIC and the RBA—again, a sensible change to have regulatory powers sit with the regulator rather than have them delegated from the minister.</para>
<para>The more interesting part of the bill, and the part I'll be focusing on, is schedule 4, which introduces mandatory climate reporting requirements for large businesses. At the outset, I want to state by support for this requirement. This bill is a significant amendment to the Corporations Act, and for particular companies requires a sustainability report to be added to the annual reporting package that also includes a financial report, a director's report and an auditor's report. Covered companies will need to tell their shareholders how climate change might affect their performance and operations. The sustainability report requires disclosure of material climate risks and opportunities, the governance process, a strategy and risk management plan, information about how to manage climate-related risks and opportunities, and climate metrics and targets including scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. The types of risks covered could include extreme weather events, rising sea levels, market shifts, technology advancements, insurance costs, and logistical disruptions or resource scarcity.</para>
<para>For large companies, the concept of sustainability reporting is not new. Australian companies are actually pretty good at recognising environmental, social and governance—or ESG—risks, with 98 per cent of Australia's top companies providing sustainability reporting, most for many years. Eighty per cent of ASX100 companies recognise climate as a financial risk, with 78 per cent reporting in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. This is actually a topic quite close to my heart. Ten years ago, I was the sustainability manager at one of Australia's 10 largest companies, overseeing its sustainability reporting, including climate reporting. We reported on sustainability and climate risks in our annual sustainability report, because our investors were starting to wake up to the significant risks ahead and wanted to know how we were addressing these risks. Even at that stage we had our sustainability report audited to give investors confidence that what they read was accurate. This was voluntary—both the reporting and the auditing. We did it because it was useful information for our investors. But not every company did it, and there were a range of reporting frameworks and standards. This made it hard to compare sustainability data and risks between companies.</para>
<para>Last month, the Investor Group on Climate Change published an open letter in support of the bill we're debating today. This group of 15 organisations, including the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the insurance and property councils of Australia, represents more than 900 companies and investors with more than $80 trillion in assets under management. This is a group of organisations that understands risk and sees the benefit in better information about the risks posed by the big shifts climate change will drive.</para>
<para>This bill does create an additional reporting burden, especially for entities that are not already reporting their climate risk. When fully implemented, it's estimated that this requirement will apply to 1,800 Australian businesses and financial institutions. The reporting obligation is rolled out in three tranches: firstly for large entities, with more than $500 million in revenue or 500 employees by 2026; then quite large entities, with more than $200 million in revenue or 250 employees; and then for smaller entities, with revenue over $50 million or 100 employees, but only if they have material climate risks. Those smaller entities, called group 3 entities, don't have to report if they can show that they don't have any material climate related risks or opportunities. The assessment of materiality may incur some cost, but this seems reasonable given how quickly climate risks are changing. We want Australian businesses to be regularly considering how the world is changing and what it means for them.</para>
<para>This change is important for two reasons: so that Australian companies can operate in an internationally competitive market for capital and to help Australia meet its climate targets. Several stakeholders, including the ASX, have made the important point that implementation of a climate reporting regime is crucial to ensuring Australia remains a competitive destination for investment capital. Standardising the approach to sustainability reporting has significant advantages for companies and for the investment community.</para>
<para>Under the bill, climate statements must be prepared in line with the relevant sustainability standards issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board, which are expected to align as closely as possible with the International Accounting Standards Board. It's essential that Australian companies are operating and reporting at the same level as international counterparts. KPMG has reported that the world's top 250 companies, known as the G250, are almost all providing some form of sustainability reporting. Eighty per cent of these G250 companies are setting carbon reduction targets. There are tomes of research on why sustainability reporting is beneficial for individual companies, like increased investor confident in a company and potential to highlight opportunities arising from a transition to a low-carbon economy. Evidence shows that firms engaged in clean research and development activities increase their stock market valuation. Companies that effectively manage climate related risk and capitalise on related opportunities can gain a competitive advantage in a changing market.</para>
<para>The second reason is supporting climate targets. The Carbon Market Institute said in its submission that climate reporting would work alongside market based mechanisms to help guide investment decisions that would support Australia's climate targets.</para>
<para>As well as disclosing scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions data, a company's sustainability report will need to disclose climate metrics and targets and material risks and opportunities presented by climate. Some commentators don't think this will have a material impact on Australia meeting its climate targets, but I think it helps. Transparency about material risks and future targets will mean that, as a country, we're able to get a better estimate of whether we're on track to meet our emissions reduction targets. Companies will also learn from each other's disclosures, which should drive more of a best-practice approach. If companies are competing for investment dollars based on how they address climate risk, we're likely to see better emissions reduction outcomes.</para>
<para>We need all the tools we can get to achieve our climate targets, so mandatory climate related disclosure will sit alongside the safeguard mechanism and sectoral policies and programs to build a more complete picture of the challenge ahead and how we're tracking towards it. Knowing where we stand will allow us to formulate policies in response to the size of the challenge.</para>
<para>There are two main issues that have prompted some discussion between different stakeholders: the transition period and modified liability. There's been some discussion about the phasing in of reporting obligations for group 1, 2 and 3 entities. On balance, I think the timing proposed seems reasonable. For some it will be a new type of reporting, and having a few years to prepare should increase the quality of the reporting and allow companies to plan for it. I would rather that we have a well-functioning framework that's understood and applied in an informed way than that we have a rushed framework that creates a burden that's not well understood or implemented. As ASIC continues to remind us, the growing interest in environmental, social and governance issues is driving the biggest changes to financial reporting and disclosure standards in a generation. So let's get it right and work with the private sector to build a robust and respected reporting framework. In a recent ASIC survey of AICD members, 31 per cent of respondents said that their main concern in relation to mandatory climate disclosure is the complexity of reporting requirements. I believe we need to give companies appropriate transition time to implement these changes properly. Accounting firms may also need to increase their capability and sustainability auditing, so ramping up the requirements is a pragmatic way to address a big change like this.</para>
<para>The second controversial part of the bill is the inclusion of a modified liability approach for the first three years of the scheme. This means that, for the first three years, civil actions by affected individuals and investor groups cannot be pursued against companies for false or misleading disclosures in their sustainability reports or in an auditor's report about scope 3 emissions, scenario analysis or transition plans. The government says this will ensure that reporting entities, auditors and directors are allowed time to develop experience and practice to report in line with the required standards.</para>
<para>Stakeholders have conflicting views on this. Some think the immunity should be extended, but many think either that it's too wide in scope or that it applies for too long. I can see why some are objecting to this and think that it may allow continued greenwashing for another three years. There is that risk. But, having been responsible for sustainability reporting in a diversified conglomerate, I know it can be complicated. Scope 3 emissions are likely to have a large component of estimation, and I don't think it's appropriate for companies to be civilly liable for these estimates when they're building up their methodology and skills. Scenario analysis and transition plans also contain an element of forecasting that will be challenging. Notably, ASIC may still take an action for misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to climate related disclosures during the transition period. I would support an amendment that allowed civil action in relation to serious misconduct, but it's not a deal breaker.</para>
<para>So I support a moderated liability period. I'm aware that some stakeholders are worried about the length of this modified liability—that three years is too long and allows more greenwashing while being protected from third-party actions. While I note this concern, on balance I think a three-year modified liability period is appropriate, particularly for those companies that are entering the reporting scheme for the first time. For auditors, it may take three years to build up the methodology and standards to appropriately assure these elements of climate reporting that depend on estimation and future predictions.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I think this introduction of mandatory climate risk reporting is necessary for international competitiveness. It levels the playing field so that all covered entities report, rather than there being a reporting burden only on those who choose to do it voluntarily. It will create clear reporting standards for comparison purposes, which will also allow the assurance industry to build the necessary skills. As much as I'd like to see mandatory reporting on climate risk immediately, given my understanding of the complexity of sustainability reporting and given that it is a big change in reporting requirements, I think it's appropriate that requirements are phased in and liability is modified for three years. I would like to see a change to the modified liability framework so that civil action is still available for serious misconduct to protect the intention of the bill, but this will not change my support for the bill in its current form. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The right of third parties and consumers to hold companies, businesses, governments and individuals to account for making false or misleading statements is crucial not only to our society's general health but specifically to the proper functioning of any market. From our day-to-day purchases through to the big investments some will make in businesses, products or projects, each of these decisions requires a level of access to accurate information to ensure that it's well informed.</para>
<para>At a macro level our global economy has relied on a range of standardised business reporting processes that provide transparency to a multitude of stakeholders who may be interested in a particular business. For many years most of the reporting processes in Australia have been modelled on those generally accepted international standards, which today are commonly known as the International Financial Reporting Standards—or the IFRS. These are accounting standards governing how certain types of transactions and events should be reported in financial statements. They were developed and maintained by a body known as the International Accounting Standards Board, and they seek to ensure the standards are applied on a globally consistent basis to provide investors and other users of financial statements with the ability to compare the financial performance of publicly listed companies on a like-for-like basis with their international peers. The IFRS, which replaced the International Accounting Standards in 2000, are now used in over 100 countries, including the European Union and over two-thirds of the G20.</para>
<para>As someone who has both run national domestic businesses and sat on a global executive team for a multinational company, I know how important it is that these reporting processes are not only standardised but also scrutinised and updated on a regular basis. Across the early 2000s I was both on the board of and a domestic CEO for the Australian operations of a company whose parent entity was based in the USA. In that capacity I witnessed firsthand the shock that was the global recession of 2000 through to the 2007 financial crisis. I rapidly learned the importance of ensuring consistency in reporting business performance across markets. Fast forward to 2017, and, again as the CEO, I worked with the board of a national charity I was then running to produce the first integrated annual report in the not-for-profit sector in Australia. Stepping into that reporting frame was not easy, and it took us around three years to fully understand the process and produce a report that I felt met our obligations under this ambition appropriately. So today I bring not only the voice and expertise of my community of North Sydney to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 but also my lived experience in terms of what it means to embrace a new reporting standard in an existing corporate entity.</para>
<para>Ultimately the provision of accurate information to investors and key stakeholders is critical in driving public accountability, and generally my community of North Sydney welcome the alignment of our markets with global climate related financial reporting frameworks, as they believe increased transparency will be to the betterment of us all. The climate disclosure framework debated today will improve the ability of governments, regulators, investors and the public both here in Australia and globally to make informed decisions, manage climate related risks and encourage the transition to a renewable energy economy. Importantly, high-quality climate related financial disclosures will attract international capital.</para>
<para>In this context, the first part of the bill, which introduces a crisis management and resolution regime for Australia's financial market infrastructure, is noncontentious in my electorate. By enhancing the licensing, supervising and enforcement powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Reserve Bank of Australia, and changing the roles and responsibilities of the minister, the RBA and ASIC, my community is satisfied the government has taken on board appropriate recommendations from the Council of Financial Regulators.</para>
<para>The second part of the legislation introduces mandatory climate related financial disclosures. This is where my community has a differing opinion on what is appropriate for our times, and it is this divergence of opinion that I will now present. From the outset it's important to note that, as with many climate related initiatives, Australia is behind the pack when it comes to implementing this reform. Jurisdictions including the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong have implemented or are implementing mandatory climate related financial disclosures. While this bill is a landmark piece of legislation in Australia, then, many of the largest businesses that will be required to abide by it domestically going forward are in fact already reporting on this basis in other markets. Given this, my community believes the modified liability provisions currently included in the legislation are too broad, specifically when it comes to the immunity related to transition plans. To address this concern I will be proposing amendments to remove immunity from third-party litigation relating to statements about transition plans. While we must be patient and protect and support those entities that may be adopting this style of reporting for the first time, it's also appropriate that we expect those businesses with deeper resources and broader experience to be faster adopters.</para>
<para>A strong climate related reporting regime which ensures that disclosures are accurate, transparent and consistent across all companies is absolutely required in our country, particularly as the impacts of what is now unavoidable climate change are being felt more often and more broadly, with severe weather events hitting more frequently. Schedule 4 of this bill establishes the framework for a mandatory climate disclosure reporting regime in Australia. This regime will require entities of a certain size which lodge reports under the Corporations Act, chapter 2M, or which have emissions reporting obligations under the National Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reporting Scheme, to make climate disclosures in accordance with the sustainability standards set out by the Australian Accounting Standards Board. At this stage, it's proposed that these new obligations will be phased in over four years.</para>
<para>As mentioned earlier in this speech, as someone who has run businesses I understand the need for a well-balanced regime that's capable of being implemented as soon as practicable while also allowing businesses the necessary time to adapt to a complex new reporting environment. It's highly appropriate that the requirement to prepare a sustainability report be phased in based on the size of an entity. As it stands, group 1, larger entities, must prepare a sustainability report in the first transitional period, which is from 2025 to 2026. Group 2 entities must prepare a report during the second transitional period, from 2026 to 2027, and group 3 entities must prepare a report on or after 1 July 2027.</para>
<para>Having run businesses of varying sizes, I support this targeted approach, knowing that larger listed companies will be more able and better resourced to meet the incoming regime, while less mature market participants may require more time to adjust to the new reporting requirements. I am concerned, however, that the bill, as it currently stands, includes a broad modified liability approach for the commencement of sustainability reporting for the first three years of the scheme. The legislation claims to be designed to ensure that reporting entities, auditors and directors are allowed time to develop experience and practice to report in line with the required standards. However, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill found that many submitters and experts raised concerns regarding the inclusion of this three-year modified liability period for all reporting entities. The concern was tied to the fact that we're already seeing high rates of corporate greenwashing in Australia, with at least one in two companies surveyed by the ACCC in 2023 found to be promoting concerning claims about their environmental credentials.</para>
<para>At a time when urgent climate action is critical, and consumers and communities are demanding that we take faster action to regear our society towards a future focused economy, it's essential that entities are held to account for greenwashing and promoting false solutions to the climate crisis. In many instances, the larger companies covered by the proposed modified liability arrangements have already begun voluntarily reporting on climate related risk as their boards and shareholders have, rightly, demanded that level of transparency and accountability of the business's executives. For this legislation to be as effective as it can be, my community would argue that it should include a higher standard for those companies that have already begun to report in this way, whilst allowing room for the development of competency amongst those businesses which may be stepping into this reporting style for the first time. Some form of indemnity provisions are appropriate, given the scale of this reform, and transitional measures will encourage fuller reporting and a proper understanding of the requirements by companies and directors. It is true that we need to get the balance right, but it's also true that we should strive to go as far and as fast as we can, as we are already far behind other markets.</para>
<para>The amendments that I will propose would remove immunity relating to transition plans while retaining the rest of the bill's modified liability regime. Why I think this makes sense is that transition plans are company led initiatives based on company business models. The integrity of those plans is essential, as they drive investor behaviour. Given that a company must already have some level of competency in the area of environmental and sustainability reporting to produce them, those businesses should be held to a higher expectation. In the exposure draft of this legislation, the only statements covered by the three-year immunity from private litigant action were those made in the sustainability report about scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions in the scenario analysis. The inclusion of limited immunity relating to statements about transition plans was only proposed for the first time in the final iteration of this draft bill. The inclusion of transition plans in the immunity provisions is both a significant departure from the proposals in the exposure draft and from the general application of misleading and deceptive conduct provisions in the Corporations Act, the ASIC Act and in the Australian Consumer Law. It's unacceptable for this change be made at this point and the legislation progressed without significant debate.</para>
<para>The interaction between a staggered start date for different-sized entities in the immunity provisions is also worth noting, as the current structure of immunity benefits the largest companies, who will enjoy three years of modified liability, while the smallest companies, who are the least equipped and have relatively less capacity, will only have the benefit of one year. That just seems unfair.</para>
<para>Yet again, the big guys with the loudest voices and the deepest pockets seem to have been able to negotiate more breathing space for themselves, when in truth I believe they should be leading the charge and setting an example that lets the smaller guys follow more easily. We should not apologise for asking businesses to continue to champion the pathway that they are already on. We don't need them to coast; we need them to step up yet another gear. In the same way that we would not expect an A-level student to be told to study less as they move towards the next exam, we need to ensure businesses keep striving for advancement.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>113</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>World Health Organization Pandemic Agreement</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the past 12 months, I have received an ever-increasing number of emails and requests from my constituents for face-to-face meetings about Australia's involvement with the WHO pandemic treaty and the outcome of the World Health Assembly. I appreciate that some in here, on both sides, might brush these concerns off as antivaxxer hysteria or the tinfoil hat brigade, both terms being dismissive and, let's face it, pretty offensive to those articulating genuine concern within our electorates.</para>
<para>After the pandemic and the subsequent decisions made by state and federal governments, people in my electorate are sincerely fearful of the potential outcomes for themselves and their families and have been trying to stay informed about each new development in the process. There is a lot of conflicting information on the internet, some accurate and up to date and some not so. On my concerned constituents' behalf, I'd like to offer my own concerns and hopes around where the Australian government are heading in regard to this issue.</para>
<para>My constituents have outlined their fears in relation to Australia's sovereignty should we sign up. To be honest, when the treaty was first broached in its original draft form, I too was worried about the idea that, should we sign up to an agreement of this nature, we would not be in control of our own decisions around treating the health of our own population. The people who have reached out to us as their parliamentary representatives are not conspiracy theorists for calling this out, as there were genuine points contained in the draft that could lead any reasonable person to this conclusion.</para>
<para>Many in my electorate have also expressed concern around sovereignty over their own bodies and livelihoods. With so many who have visited me at my mobile offices losing their jobs during the pandemic—and I have friends who did—and being unable to work in their professions until very recently, it's not hard to understand where this concern is coming from.</para>
<para>Since its original draft in 2021, many amendments have been made to the WHO pandemic treaty, in consultation with experts and governments across the globe. I have been doing my best to keep up. In the early phase of proposals, commentary in the<inline font-style="italic"> British Medical Journal</inline> suggested:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It will take years to draw up any convention and it is unclear exactly what it will cover and how much global authority it will hold, with countries pushing and pulling in different directions.</para></quote>
<para>Well, that pushing and pulling is continuing. As it stands, as of 29 May this year, negotiations on the pandemic treaty had failed to reach a conclusion before the 2024 World Health Assembly. The WHO indicated that states had agreed to continue discussing the next steps for negotiations, with the aim of agreeing the timing, format and process to conclude the pandemic agreement. Essentially, it has stalled once again, and there is no agreement by the global community or, importantly, Australia.</para>
<para>I would like to say to each member of my electorate who has reached out to me and asked for my assistance in protecting their rights and freedoms and in protecting our nation's sovereignty, that I have heard you and I agree with you. I don't believe in international foreign powers having a hand in how we make decisions for our nation and its population. I don't believe in governments exerting undue control over their citizens. As a member of the National Party, one of our key values is that the role of government is to provide a framework within which our community can thrive, by supporting individual achievement and understanding the importance of free choice and a fair go. I was not in support of border closures and the resulting state based serfdoms that ensued. I was not in support of people losing their jobs because they made a decision about themselves and their bodies—decisions that any citizen of a democratic country like ours should be able to make. I will not dismiss your real concerns. I share them with you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government knows that burgeoning HECS debt and costly prac placements have been a heavy burden for many Australians who have chosen to study. That's why, in our recent budget, our government announced a significant reduction in HECS debt, saving three million Australian graduates $3 billion. The Albanese government will also heavily subsidise prac placements for nursing, social work and teaching. This is in recognition of the cost-of-living pressures facing many Australians, particularly young people. It also reflects our government's commitment to build a skilled, capability workforce—a workforce that will fill the skills gap in many under-resourced sectors.</para>
<para>In my electorate, the response to this has been unanimously positive. I've been speaking with community members for many years about the need for a fairer HECS system and more support for our students on prac placements, and I'm pleased that our government has heard this call and is acting to reduce the financial burden. HECS relief will help more than 18,000 graduates and those currently studying who have a HECS debt in my electorate alone. These graduates are our engineers, nurses, teachers, social workers, psychologists and accountants, and, for all those still studying, they are our workers of the future.</para>
<para>Just last week, I visited some of our current students at Deakin University in Waurn Ponds. The staff and students at the educational facility took me on a tour that highlighted the innovative tools now being used to train our future teachers, many of whom will soon be on placement in local schools. I spoke to the students about our reforms, and one student, Cait Reynolds, a third-year Bachelor of Education student, shared her views with me. She highlighted how our government's paid prac placement is going to change the lives of students studying teaching—students who are often working in minimum-wage jobs. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The paid teaching placement investment is something that is going to benefit the teachers of tomorrow …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The paid placement … will remove some pressures felt by every pre-service teacher I know.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will make me a better teacher.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I thank you for recognising this issue, for reaching out to us and for protecting the future of teaching.</para></quote>
<para>Messages like Cait's are heartwarming and, to be honest, her encouraging message is just one of many I've received. These words demonstrate that our government is acting on paid prac, it's responding to the real-life pressures on students and graduates and it will make a difference.</para>
<para>The payment will provide $319.50 each week to around 68,000 higher education students like Cait and more than 16,000 VET students in Victoria alone who are doing mandatory prac as part of their degree. On top of our investments in paid prac placements and our HECS debt cuts, many of our current students will also benefit from a rise in the minimum wage, which has now increased by $33 per week.</para>
<para>For these students, there's so much more to come. If they're a taxpayer, from 1 July they will also receive a tax cut. If they're a renter, they can access the Rent Assistance program, which has received a much needed boost—the first back-to-back increase in more than 30 years. And on top of that they will also benefit from our $300 energy bill relief package for every single household. All of these reforms are about supporting our students, our graduates and their families. It's about alleviating cost-of-living pressures, removing barriers to study and, importantly, giving them a pathway to a rewarding career. \</para>
<para>In closing, education is the gateway to opportunity, whether it's TAFE or university, an apprenticeship or a degree. Paid prac placements and reduced HECS debt will help ensure this gateway is open to everyone.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Enterprise Development Institute</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Regional Enterprise Development Institute, otherwise known as REDI, are a service and jobs provider to the Indigenous communities in western New South Wales, with a proud 25-year history. They work and they have worked diligently to close the gap for the people that they represent in western New South Wales, sometimes quite innovatively. They have been very successful in their shearing program, teaching younger Indigenous men and women skills for the shearing industry and the wool harvesting industry, so much so that young Tyron Cochrane from Goodooga beat the Kiwis in New Zealand at the Golden Shears last year—the first time since 1962. They work in hospitality, training young people through their Wilay Cafe, through their coffee cart and through their sandwich shop down in Macquarie Street in Dubbo. They work in security, even helping out the National Rugby League when teams come to Dubbo for those matches that are placed in regional areas. There's a whole range. A classic example is they took on the supermarket at Wilcannia that was ripping off the people out there. The residents of Wilcannia had a 500-kilometre roundtrip to buy their groceries; now, they have a modern, clean supermarket with fresh food and groceries at an affordable price.</para>
<para>During the debate around the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the CEO, Peter Gibbs, was quite strident in his opposition. Clearly, REDI has a mindset of local solutions driven by local people, and they were not supportive of a Canberra-based group of people that they felt would not represent their issues. Mind you, 80 per cent of my electorate felt the same way, including many of the people that REDI helps. They've got about a thousand people on their books at the moment whom they're helping. Guess what shock they felt when they got a letter from the National Indigenous Australians Agency this week saying that their contract had been terminated!</para>
<para>All the Indigenous job programs will change next year on 1 July, and a tender process will take place. Rather than leaving REDI in position so that they could apply—whether they would be successful or not—they are terminating them at the end of October this year. If you look at the time frame, we've got October then November, then we're into the Christmas period and into the New Year. Basically, those thousand people that are relying on REDI for their work placements, the people that work in REDI and the locals in pretty well every town in western New South Wales are going to be cut off at the knees.</para>
<para>The issues, apparently, are minor compliance issues—not corruption, or not meeting targets, but minor compliance issues. I've been around for a long time, and I smell a rat. I feel that the Regional Enterprise Development Institute and all the people that they support are going to be victimised because of a position that they took in a democratic country where we have freedom of choice, and the Aboriginal people in that organisation decided they would rather manage their issues more locally and did not support that. They were basically voicing the concerns of the people that they represent.</para>
<para>I've made Minister Burney aware of this. I met with her office and members of the department today. Quite frankly, I'm not satisfied with the explanation. The people in western New South Wales are going to be outraged when this becomes public. I've very rarely seen such an act of discrimination because of someone's political views. Someone that was doing a great job, a community leader, has been cut off at the knees.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bower, Mr Robert, Everitt, Mr Robert, Howard, Major General Brian, AO, MC, ESM</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to honour the lives of Robert 'Bob' Bower, Robert 'Bob' Everitt and Major General Brian 'Hori' Howard, AO, MC, ESM. We sadly lost our Robert 'Bob' Bower on 30 March 2024. Bob was an extremely valued member of the Illawarra community and the Australian Labor Party, and he will be dearly missed. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his beloved wife, Anne, his kids, Martin and Melissa, Lisa and Gerard, Jono and Sharon, Phil and Natalie, and his 13 adoring grandchildren.</para>
<para>I was very jealous of Bob and Anne 's retirement, and they remain my pin-up couple for a great retirement. Bob's life was filled with travel and dedication to his three passions: the beautiful St Michael's church at Thirroul, sailing and the ALP.</para>
<para>Bob joined the ALP in February 1988, and through his 36 years of membership his contributions were outstanding. During his time as secretary, Bob went above and beyond for the older members of the Thirroul branch by making house visits to those who couldn't travel to the monthly meetings. Bob, with his beloved wife, Anne, helped to organised the annual Thirroul branch dinner, which first started in 1966. They took great pride in preparing a wonderful three course home-cooked meal for 80 to 90 members each year. I loved watching them together in the organised chaos they had in the kitchen.</para>
<para>Bob was pivotal in our election campaigns. You would always find him on prepoll and on polling day at Thirroul Library and St Michael's school. He did this on my first election campaign in ill health, and I am forever grateful for this. He always went above and beyond for us and we are so very grateful.</para>
<para>We sadly lost Robert 'Bob' Everitt on 15 May 2024. Bob Everitt is survived by his children, Jim, Louise, Belinda and Mandy, and their partners, Glen, Dave and Peter, his 10 grandchildren and his six great-grandchildren. He is now reunited with his adoring wife, Barbara.</para>
<para>Bob met Barb at a dance when he was completing his studies at teachers college, where he was studying to be a manual arts teacher. They married in 1952 and were inseparable ever since. There was no Bob without Barb. Their marriage had spanned just shy of 70 years when he lost Barb in 2022.</para>
<para>Bob had a very successful and fulfilling teaching career spanning almost 40 years, teaching thousands of students. He taught at four schools around the state, starting at the local high school in Broken Hill and then moving to Macksville High School, then Figtree High School, then Kanahooka High School and then returning to Figtree High School before retirement. Bob has been described as a natural teacher. He would constantly encourage and validate students. He was passionate about politics and was a member of the Labor Party for over a decade. Bob's family have described him as a man who was extremely patient and never got angry, except for when Gough Whitlam was dismissed. His warm and happy presence will be missed dearly and may he rest in peace.</para>
<para>We sadly lost Major General Brian 'Hori' Howard on 16 May 2024. I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Major General Howard. He was a good friend to all who knew him and he will be dearly missed.</para>
<para>He had a very distinguished military career from 1959 to 1990. He commanded a battalion and an infantry brigade. He was Director-General of Operations and Plans for the Australian Army, instructed at the British Army staff college and served in many overseas countries, including Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Japan and Uganda. He was awarded the Military Cross in recognition of his leadership in Vietnam among other service medals.</para>
<para>From late 1989 to mid-2001, Major General Howard was appointed Director-General of the New South Wales State Emergency Service, SES. He was one of the longest serving directors-general in the SES. The current New South Wales emergency management system is largely his design. He was awarded the Emergency Services Medal for his efforts.</para>
<para>Hori has been a longstanding member of the New South Wales RSL, where he joined in May 1992, and was still an active and contributing member until his passing. He was very active in fundraising and organising commemorative events in the Illawarra. He was particularly proud to be involved in the restoration of the Austinmer World War I memorial. He was also very passionate about welfare and support for veterans and those still serving. He had so much knowledge of the RSL, and we all loved his cheeky sense of humour. His dedication, leadership and courage have left a significant legacy. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter New England Health</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to put voice to the 97,909 people in the MidCoast Council area, mainly the 48,000 people in the Manning Valley and similar numbers in Forster-Tuncurry and Gloucester region, who are being short-changed by the New South Wales government and the Hunter New England Health authority, in particular. The late Stephen Bromhead, member of the Legislative Assembly for the Myall Lakes, achieved so much for the hospital. He got a commitment of $160 million in total for the upgrade of the Manning Base Hospital, which has suffered from being stuck inside the vortex of the Hunter New England Health authority.</para>
<para>Why is a federal member speaking about state responsibility issues? You may well ask that. The reason is—I want to be on the public record saying this—the Hunter New England Health authority has sucked the life out of many country regional hospitals in its area. It's a massive area going up to Tenterfield, Glen Innes, Inverell—it is a big area. The best way for John Hunter Hospital and Maitland Hospital to cope with the whole population of Newcastle is for them to have strong regional hospitals so that not everyone gets referred down to Newcastle. There was a commitment to do a major renovation and an upgrade of the Manning Base Hospital. They've done the first stage, but back in 2021 there was a $100 million on the table. The government has changed, but the thing that remains in common, from the money that was there in the previous state government's budget to now, is the Hunter New England Health authority.</para>
<para>We've argued many times. Many people have signed petitions. Over 12,000 people in the Manning Valley have written on a petition calling on the government to spend the money that has been there since 2021. Nothing has happened. They come out with a master plan, or they come up with a clinical services plan. I spent 33 years working in New South Wales public health. I know how the beast works. Bureaucrats can obfuscate, they can divert, they can do stalling measures, they can say other priorities have popped up—I'm telling you there are 100,000 people in Forster-Tuncurry and in the Manning Valley who are missing out because this Newcastle-centric area health authority thinks that anyone else should just be delegated to a new ambulance station or a superficial upgrade.</para>
<para>I fought tooth-and-nail from the federal level to make sure that the Manning Base Hospital got an MRI licence when they were limited. We delivered that. I fought to get a headspace which was federally funded into Taree and the Manning region, as well as outreach to Forster-Tuncurry. We have delivered $4½ million for a radiotherapy unit in the Manning Valley, based in Taree. But it has been held up for 18 months or more through council disapproval and then finally for regional planning approval. But the thing that really needs to be done is the Manning Base Hospital upgrade. It needs to start its upgrade now. There's $100 million on the table.</para>
<para>Also, Stephen Bromhead and the now member for Myall Lakes, Tanya Thompson, fought tooth-and-nail to get a commitment for a public hospital in Forster. That's 48,000 people who don't have a public hospital. It's outrageous that an area that swells to probably 90,000 people during vacations does not have a public hospital. The general practitioners in a major surgery working out of a nearby private hospital have a couple of renal beds and rehab beds, but it deserves its own hospital, and I call on Hunter New England Health to take off their blinkers, look at the needs of 100,000 people and start that planning now for a Forster public hospital and for the upgrade, the money for which they've copped and are spending elsewhere, probably in Newcastle.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Arts And Culture, Australia Post: St Kilda South Post Office Closure</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I want to speak about two issues that are really important to my community of Macnamara. Our creative industries are more than entertainment, and Macnamara is home to world-class creative industries. We have some of the best artists, theatres, musicians, sound technicians and visual artists. So many different aspects of the creative sector are in the heart of my electorate. In our community, one in 10 people work in the creative industries, and I am proud of each and every one of them.</para>
<para>We are the arts capital of Australia. From live music venues in St Kilda to the theatres of Southbank and the studios in South Melbourne, a visit to Macnamara is a visit to some of the most iconic sites and venues. But you don't get them without training the next generation of artists, and one of the things that I am extremely proud of is that the National Institute of Dramatic Art, or NIDA as it's commonly known, the Australian National Academy of Music, ANAM, and the Australian Ballet School all have premises in my electorate. I had the privilege of visiting all three recently.</para>
<para>I know how important the arts are to our community and to society in general, which is why the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Arts came to Macnamara last year to launch our arts policy, <inline font-style="italic">Revive</inline>. For a decade, our arts institutions and industries were completely neglected by a coalition government. They were in sharp decline due to the funding that was cut from the arts, especially when they were left off the JobKeeper payments throughout the pandemic. That is slowly being turned around, and I am proud of the efforts that we are making.</para>
<para>I'm proud of the fact that we have delivered $115.2 million for the ARTS8 group, including the Australian Ballet School, which trains some of the most incredible future ballet performers; the Australian National Academy of Music, and if you haven't seen an ANAM concert or some of the classical performances in this building, where they have performed a number of times, then please come to a show either in South Melbourne or in the Melbourne Recital Centre, one of the great theatres of Melbourne; and NIDA, one of the premier dramatic arts institutions in the country and the world. These institutions needed a lifeline, and that's what they got. I've met countless times with them and I've been advocating inside government to ensure that they get the funding they need. With the Minister for the Arts, I was extremely pleased to go and visit the Australian Ballet School and speak to some of the students and watch their gruelling training. It was a remarkable reminder of how talented our artists are.</para>
<para>The other issue I want to talk about today is the St Kilda South post office. My office is situated on Barkly Street, at the corner of Acland Street, right in the heart of St Kilda. Only a few minutes walk away, down the wonderful Acland Street, is the St Kilda South post office. A few weeks ago, Australia Post announced that they would be closing down that post office. For many in our community, my own office and staff included, this post office is not just a place to send and receive mail; it's an integral part of the business community, the community and the comings and goings of St Kilda. It supports and sustains small businesses and it connects us all to the world and to each other.</para>
<para>The post office provides a critical service to our community. A lot of residents who have been in St Kilda for decades have used the St Kilda South post office, and it was extremely disappointing to hear that Australia Post had made the decision to close it.</para>
<para>One of my wonderful local constituents, a gentlemen by the name of Levi, decided to do something about it. He started a petition. It is extraordinary that Levi has managed to achieve almost 3½ thousand signatures from local people. I met with Levi and we discussed ways in which we would work together to try to communicate, push back and make sure Australia Post understands the full extent of what their decision will mean for our community.</para>
<para>I was also pleased to begin this week with a meeting with the Minister for Communications. She was extremely interested in the views of our community in Macnamara and agreed to do whatever she could to try to make sure that the community were heard and understood. We don't have the power in the act to direct Australia Post to remain open, but we obviously are going to do everything we can to ensure that the people of Macnamara and the people of St Kilda have fierce representation being made to Australia Post. We will continue working hard for our community, and we'll continue working hard for the almost 3½ thousand people who have signed the petition to keep the St Kilda South post office open.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>117</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 5 June 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:29.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>118</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Greens</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you feel hopeless and powerless about the state of politics, I do not blame you. If you feel like it's not possible to make any change and your only experience of politics is watching it play out on your phone or on the TV, I do not blame you. But let me tell you: there are changes happening right now in this country that are happening as a direct result of your effort and collective power. The political establishment will always go out of their way to try and make you feel like you had nothing to do with the changes that they make in response to our collective effort.</para>
<para>Let's take a look at Queensland and what's happening there right now. The Queensland Greens went to the state election in 2020 on a platform of free public transport, raising mining royalties to pay for cheaper power bills and a universal free breakfast and school lunch scheme in every single state school. When we announced those policies, we were ridiculed. We were told by both major parties that public transport was already affordable enough. We were told there was going to be a mining royalty freeze, not even an increase. We were told that, even though people were doing it tough, the government weren't going to make big corporations pay more, despite the fact that they were getting away with record profits. What changed between then and now? The Greens movement got bigger. You fought. You knocked on doors. You helped build a movement that got two state MPs and five federal members from the Greens elected in Queensland. In fact, all of metropolitan Brisbane is now represented by the Greens.</para>
<para>Now we face a state election where the Greens can win up to 10 seats. As a result of that effort, your effort to build this movement—not me standing here but people like you at home watching this—we are starting to see shifts. We saw the state government recently announce 50c public transport fares entirely because they are terrified of the Greens threat in Brisbane. They'll announce that, and it's going to be a six-month trial. It should be free. But the only reason that 50c public transport fare is happening—the only change between 2020, when the state government and Labor refused to do that, and now—is your effort.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can hear Labor members opposite kicking up a stink. They're doing that because they are terrified of what happens when you realise you have power. They are terrified of what happens when you realise your collective effort can win things like that. There will be people right now whose lives will be significantly improved as a result of that pressure.</para>
<para>We also saw them talk about not wanting to increase mining royalties. Then they relented on that as well. The $1,000 off on energy bills and all of that are an attempt to stop the Greens winning more seats. That is what power looks like. There will come a time in this country when a government will get up and announce caps on rent increases. They'll pretend like it had nothing to do with our campaign. They'll get up and announce including dental care in Medicare, and again they'll pretend like it had nothing to do with you—but you will know it did. You know it's your collective effort, and only your collective effort, that will get real change in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Language Schools</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Moreton has a wonderful mix of cultures and ethnicities that make the south side of Brisbane rich and vibrant. There are faith celebrations, festivals, a smorgasbord of food and various languages. I only have to walk outside my electorate office to hear people talking in different languages: a daily reminder of the diversity of where I work, live and play. Moreton has constituents from China, India, Taiwan, Somalia, Ethiopia, New Zealand, Fiji, Korea, Eritrea, Sudan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam, and that's not an exhaustive list by any means.</para>
<para>Across Australia, over six million people speak over 300 identified languages other than English. Valuing and keeping these languages alive in Australia makes our community richer both socially and economically. But mainstream schools do not have the capacity to teach all these languages, obviously. This is where community language schools come in. Community language schools enable Australian children to learn a second language and, in so doing, expand their cultural awareness, their understanding and acceptance, and lay the groundwork for future trade opportunities. They've been going since 1857 and have helped make Australia one of the world's greatest trading countries and multicultural nations, and the world's 13th biggest economy.</para>
<para>Recently the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs announced $15 million in grants to over 600 community language schools around the nation. This will directly assist over 90,000 students learning 84 different languages. The funding will enable community language schools to expand their programs to include more school aged children from prep up. With languages, it's always best to start early. I'm proud to say that nine different not-for-profit language schools in Moreton are recipients of this funding. That means a boost for people learning Mandarin, Tagalog, Uighur, Arabic and African languages including Amharic and Swahili.</para>
<para>Learning these languages helps connect people to the languages of their heritage, their parents, their grandparents and communities. The students attending these schools benefit from establishing connections within the local and wider community and the inspiration to help keep cultural practices alive. The authentic teaching of home languages makes children feel understood and gives them a sense of belonging and identity as well as helping them to understand their parents' experiences and background—all factors that are crucial to wellbeing.</para>
<para>It's also time to reflect on the role of community language schools in promoting social cohesion. Community language schools value connectedness and often organise and promote community events such as workshops, exhibitions, cultural performances and talks. We can always learn something new from our neighbours and friends from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Children are often the guides for their parents into the new Australian community. They make the transition easier and more harmonious.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a government that deeply values and supports our multicultural nation and the many benefits that come from learning a second language.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cook Electorate: Relay For Life Volunteers</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to acknowledge the Sutherland Shire Relay For Life. Earlier in May, 1,207 community members ran for over 24 hours in torrential rain and thunderstorms raising $360,000 for cancer. I saw these abysmal conditions firsthand—puddles, sideways rain and very strong winds—and the participants were amazing. Also incredible were the volunteers, and they make it happen every year. They showed me what Cook is really about—the deep sense of community and care—and I'd like to acknowledge them.</para>
<para>The Sutherland Shire Relay For Life committee included Filipa Ferreira, Kim Guy, Tammi Hodge and Natalia Pisani. Those who worked on the marathon were Roy Coy; Glenn Nicholas; Shaen Crow; Illana Crowe; Cathy Mason; Rob Stanley-Jones, who was a great MC on the day; Harry Laycock, the photographer; Moira Campbell, who did the recruitment and volunteers; Kristina Wisniewski, who did registration; Kylie Springall; Phoebe Downes and Bibana Beaupark. Liz Vandermaal looked after schools and youth. Lesley Barratt and Therese Della Bosca worked on the banquet that evening. Richard Mason, Craig Winstanley, Blake Williams and Stefan Wisniewski worked on the audio-visual that day, rigging it up in the tents. Abi Simpson, Beth Standalolf, Crystal Gazeley, Deb Paciolla, Julie Webster, Leighton Wren, Lucy Ryan and Sharon Drake were volunteers on the day and coordinated them. Brent Collier, Melanie Dale and Tony Dale worked on Fight Back.</para>
<para>Sue Haynes and Lisa Dietrich looked after She Oak Grove. Bronwyn Mitchell, Helen Scott, Jenny Nicholas, Linda Burg, Sharon Sue Sheppard and Lorraine Donne looked after the survivors and carers of cancer. I'd also like to acknowledge Luke Kemmler and Brett Brosen; Emma Broadhurst and Kathryn Broadhurst, who took care of youth activities; and Jasper Downs, who took care of the youth stage and dancers. I'd also like to acknowledge the major clubs and sponsors: Tradies; Ansto; Carers Gateway; Caringbah Rotary, with Cathy and Richard Mason and the other Rotary volunteers; Genesis Care; Madame Foodie; Peak Health; and Pilates Power and Physiotherapy in Cronulla.</para>
<para>It was an amazing effort, and I want to thank all of those people and all of the participants for showing me what the community and care in Cook is all about.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corangamite Electorate: Crime</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Community safety and security matters. That's why I have joined with Victoria Police to launch a local crime prevention group in my electorate of Corangamite. I convened the inaugural meeting last week in Armstrong Creek, along with local leaders from schools, sporting clubs and community groups, who will help shape the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Group and the proactive approaches we will take to address local issues.</para>
<para>Like many others, my region faces challenges relating to crime and safety. While our local police force work tirelessly to maintain order, the most effective way to combat crime is in cooperative approaches that harness the strength and resources of both law enforcement and the community. This new group will foster that collaboration, create a proactive approach and form a united front against crime and for a safe and secure community. This group will have a focus on the rapidly growing areas of Mount Duneed, Armstrong Creek, the Surf Coast, Grovedale and Waurn Ponds.</para>
<para>It must be said that these are well-policed, safe suburbs, but there is a growing need for greater community engagement with local police. Our police put locals' rights at the heart of how they tackle crime, and they always welcome feedback by allowing our residents to voice their opinions, share experiences and suggest improvements. This group provides the perfect forum for that to occur.</para>
<para>The community safety and crime prevention group will work with local stakeholders and members of the community to identify concerns, address community safety and receive crime prevention advice. The latest local data presented by police will be revealing and useful for the understanding of the types and extent of crime. Of course, Victorian police already have a strong connection with our local communities throughout the region. The crime prevention group aims to make these connections even stronger, with increased police involvement and engagement with local leaders and residents.</para>
<para>I look forward to keeping my communities informed about the actions and events that result from this new initiative. It's already reaping rewards, with the sharing of useful information and suggestions for upcoming events that raise awareness about community safety and better connect our rapidly growing communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tucker, Mr Brian Kenrick (Reggie), OAM</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate of Capricornia is mourning the passing of an Australian sporting icon, Ken 'Reggie' Tucker OAM. Born and bred in Rockhampton, Reggie was a true local. His father was a cyclist who inspired Reggie to take up the sport at a young age, and his family now celebrates four generations of cycling athletes. Reggie soon became a track cycling coach who coached hundreds of Rockhampton locals, including some of the region's finest athletes, for over 50 years. In 2021, Reggie finally hung up his stopwatch at the ripe old age of 85. His teaching has led to success in both Commonwealth and Olympic Games, as well as in various state- and national-level competitions.</para>
<para>Cycling has long been a very important part of the Rockhampton region. This status is in large part due to Reggie Tucker's persistence in crafting world-class cyclists. It was Reggie's three sons—Kenrick, Russell and Byron—who were responsible for his start in coaching. He has been quoted as saying that he had no official training as a coach but drew on his own experience as a cyclist and studied the opposition very, very closely. It proved to be a winning formula, with his three sons all going on to be Australian champions, as did Kenrick's daughters Brooke and Lara. So many of his proteges went on to enjoy success and achieve their goals, something that made him incredibly satisfied. Through his style of coaching, Reggie's son Kenrick participated in two Commonwealth Games, coming home with consecutive gold medals for the men's 1,000-metre match sprint. Kenrick also participated in two Olympic Games: the 1980 Moscow games and the 1984 Los Angeles games. Reggie's skilled coaching was also passed on to the next generation of cyclists. The famous Meares sisters, Kerrie and Anna, collectively went on to win consecutive gold medals at both Olympic and Commonwealth games. Both sisters remain icons not just in the Rockhampton region but for all aspiring cyclists.</para>
<para>The Kenrick Tucker Velodrome, named after Reggie's son, is a key piece of cycling infrastructure in the region. For much of Rockhampton's cycling history, it has been the birthplace for the careers of many of our local and national champions. Reggie was instrumental in the establishment of the velodrome. Reggie Tucker's service to the region is truly commendable. He transformed regional cycling into a force to be reckoned with for urban areas. Armed with significantly less funding than his Brisbane counterparts, and against all odds, Reggie fought a David and Goliath battle and won.</para>
<para>Sporting is a source of immense national pride. To represent a region that produces so many talented athletes is a true honour. I want to send my condolences to the Tucker family for their loss. Reggie Tucker was not only a great sporting legend and community leader but also a father and grandfather. I have no doubt that the Tucker family are proud of the mark that Reggie has made on the Rockhampton region, as well as on the lives of so many of us in the community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney Electorate: Community Services</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to say that we have been talking a lot in our community about domestic violence in recent times, and quite often people ask, 'Well, why didn't she leave?', when in fact they should be asking, 'Where would she go?' So today I want to take the opportunity to thank the services that work in my local area to support the women and children leaving violence. I want to thank all of them but I particularly want to call out some of the services I have been visiting locally. Recently, I went to a fundraiser for Lou's Place, which does amazing work in Sydney, including providing home-cooked meals, shower and laundry facilities, clothing and toiletries, critical frontline support and therapeutic programs to support women. I went to their fundraiser. They're also doing great work recycling fashion because of that fundraiser.</para>
<para>I went to the Elsie Refuge, celebrating 50 years of women's refuges in Australian, recognising the incredible work of the Elsie Women's Refuge, set up by a bunch of women who took over two houses in the Glebe estate 50 years ago and continue to make the case for better support for women and children leaving violence.</para>
<para>I joined the Walk for WAGEC, the women's and girls emergency centre in Sydney, to raise critical funds for their marvellous service, and every year they do better in their fundraising. Social services minister Amanda Rishworth and I visited WAGEC a few months ago as well, one of many visits I've made to see the marvellous work they do. Just recently, I went to the St Vincent de Paul distribution centre in Redfern with Minister Rishworth, looking at the support they give our local community. I met not only their amazing staff and volunteers but also many of the clients, who showed the most incredible resilience in telling their stories of leaving behind violence.</para>
<para>I met again with the Salvation Army in Waterloo, who do so much as well to help women and children who are fleeing domestic and family violence. Of course, I'm doing what I can to support the Salvation Army in their plans for upgrades to their premises. They've got lots of premises across Sydney and they really want to offer a better quality of accommodation and support to the people who visit their places like the Samaritan House. I've been to the Wayside Chapel recently. Wayside Chapel has just begun to do more amazing work with women who are leaving violence.</para>
<para>Julie Collins and I recently went to 2010 that supports LGBTIQA+ young people and I am very proud of the fact we are investing $91.7 million as a government in youth homelessness services. I've met recently with the people from the Foyer Foundation in my electorate, again, who support young people who are often leaving violent situations.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ifield, Mr Francis Edward (Frank)</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to pay tribute to Frank Ifield. Frank's musical prowess and unwavering spirit burnished Australia's place in the history of country music. Frank Ifield was a great. He lived in the Berowra electorate, and we are proud to call him our own. At eight years old in London during the blitz, Frank shared his love for music even in the city's bunkers. His brother Bob recalls him singing <inline font-style="italic">10</inline><inline font-style="italic">Green Bottles</inline> to the delights of those sheltering with his family. From there, Frank shared his prowess for playing stringed instruments after the family moved to Dural, encouraged by perceptive teachers to set Australian poems to music. He then honed his talents on radio shows and stages across Australia. Frank loved connecting with audiences through live performance. His first single, <inline font-style="italic">Lucky Devil</inline>, was released in London, accompanied by television appearances and live tours across the United Kingdom. It paved the way for the smash it, <inline font-style="italic">I Remember You,</inline> which sat at UK No. 1 for seven weeks in 1962.</para>
<para>My late father was a 2CH man and I remember he was a regular favourite of that station. The song demonstrates another of Frank's many musical talents—his yodelling. His brothers told me how he honed his skills yodelling by yodelling to his parents' disobedient dairy cow, the first of many to be won over by his songs. <inline font-style="italic">I Remember You</inline> demonstrates Frank's capacity for capturing hearts across the globe.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Love</inline> <inline font-style="italic">sick Blues</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Wayward Wind</inline> were the next two singles to take off in the UK, making him the first England based artist to have three successive UK No. 1s. At that time, only Elvis Presley had released three UK chart toppers. Frank went on to perform for the royal family and fulfilled his dream of playing at the London Palladium. In the US, he became the first Australian artist to appear in pop and country charts, leading to a performance at the Grand Ole Opry, even becoming an honorary citizen of Tennessee.</para>
<para>As his brother David told me, Frank's success was no accident. When David describes Frank, he describes his positive and cheerful personality that carried him through the long and hard-won battles of the early days. David, too, speaks of the support that Frank provided to others as a musical trailblazer. Sir Paul McCartney recently thanked Frank for helping get the Beatles off the ground in the early days. In 1962, a year before their first album, Frank gave them a chance as his support act at Peterborough's Embassy cinema. Promoter Arthur Howes first noticed the young act that night, setting up more performances for the band, helping them on their way to stardom.</para>
<para>Returning to Dural following his performing career, Frank never stopped fostering talent. He initiated the Galston Country Music Festival, to platform local artists. He was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in 2007. He received the Order of Australia for his services to the arts.</para>
<para>Frank passed away on 18 May, survived by Carole, his brothers David and Bob, who live in the electorate, and his children, Mark and Sarah. I'm grateful to David and Bob for sharing their recollections.</para>
<para>Country music fans, the people of Dural, Beecroft and Galston, remember Frank fondly for carrying Australian country music across nations, with integrity and passion. Frank, after the thrill of it all, we're delighted to say: we remember you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kingston Electorate: Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to be able to speak today about the impact that fee-free TAFE is having in my community in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Fee-free TAFE is providing so many opportunities to many people in my electorate who had not previously pursued secondary study—they have may have dropped out of school or not taken up other opportunities. Fee-free TAFE is opening the doors of opportunity to so many people.</para>
<para>I recently attended the TAFE campus at Noarlunga to meet with students and a number of their lecturers. I listened to the life-changing experiences of fee-free TAFE and I visited workshops of students completing a Certificate II in Electrotechnology and a Certificate II in Construction Pathways. Many of these students were only able to attend these courses because of fee-free TAFE. I asked students about how fee-free TAFE had benefited them, and the responses were extremely moving. I'll just mention a few. Maya from Sellicks Beach said: 'It has been a relief to not pay for the course and to just get it done. It's been fun.' Lewis from Hackham said: 'It's been a great opportunity for my career change from painting. Fee-free TAFE has made this possible. The course was $8,000, and I wouldn't have considered it otherwise.' I heard so many students talk about how they were taking the opportunity to either try something out of their comfort zone or to have a career change. One young man I met there said he would have been continuing to work in something like fast food, but he wanted to upskill, and this gave him the opportunity. I was really pleased to speak with Kevin, who is a TAFE lecturer. He said: 'This is a stepping stone to getting into industry. This is the most diverse group that we've ever had. It's challenging, but that's the reward of the job.'</para>
<para>But the benefits of fee-free TAFE are not just the life-changing benefits for the students. The Noarlunga TAFE campus was desolate before fee-free TAFE came into play. Many courses were no longer being offered, and that has all changed. We have now seen the Noarlunga TAFE campus come to life. The connections it's making with local industry, giving those pathway opportunities to students, has been life changing. Fee-Free TAFE is changing our community. It's providing more opportunities. Importantly, it's revitalising Noarlunga TAFE campus.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Asylum Seekers, Groom Electorate: Toowoomba Refugee and Migrant Support Service</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'We will decide, and nobody else, who comes to this country. We'll be compassionate, we will save lives and we'll care for people.' With those words in 2001, Prime Minister John Howard set out his vision for Australia's immigration and refugee program. With strong borders and a strong economy, Howard believed Australia could achieve a cohesive future both for those who are here and those who are yet to come.</para>
<para>In 2014, alerted to the pending destruction of some 4,000 Iraqis, Syrian Christians and other minorities, including the Yazidi people, at the hands of ISIS, Prime Minister Tony Abbott fulfilled Howard's promise and confirmed with a simple statement: 'We will save those people.' And save them we did. The ADF sent in helicopters to the top of Mount Sinjar, where thousands of Yazidis were preparing themselves for a most terrifying and violent end. We saved them. We brought them home—to a new home here in Australia—and I'm proud to say that many of those who were rescued that day and others who fled from ISIS in the subsequent troubles that beset the Middle East have settled in my hometown of Toowoomba. Of an evening, we hear them play soccer and volleyball in Newtown Park in my own neighbourhood. My own children often play with them, completely unaware of the very unlikely past that brings them together. It's a great Australian story, and it's a timely reminder of how, when you're in control of your borders and in control of your immigration program, you can extend the fullness of the nation's kindness, care and compassion to those who are most in need.</para>
<para>The presence of the Yazidi in Toowoomba is a great legacy of the Liberal Party and of the coalition and one that, since coming to this role, I've sought to enhance. In 2021, it was raised with me that funding the Toowoomba Refugee and Migrant Support Service, or TRAMS, was due to expire. This funding had been secured by my predecessor, John McVeigh, under the Settlement Engagement and Transition Support program, SETS. It was crucial that this TRAMS funding be extended because of the specific nature of the trauma that Yazidis had gone through. It's hard for us now to take ourselves back and remember the horror and the gore that ISIS brought to the world, but the Yazidi will never forget. They most certainly are getting on with their lives. They're studying, starting careers and injecting themselves into our community. They're doing all that a nation could ask of any group of citizens. But it's only 10 years since these horrors, and they still need some support. I believe that, when we chose to bring them here, we also took on the responsibility of helping them to settle.</para>
<para>Since 2021, I've advocated for an extension to the TRAMS funding, and today I heartily commend the government for committing to an extension of that funding. Australia is not a racist country as some at the ABC would have you believe. We are a very compassionate country that readily extends the hand of friendship to people around the world, particularly in their hour of need. I congratulate the minister, the Prime Minister and his government. I congratulate all those who have fought for this outcome, particularly CatholicCare CEO Kate Venables for her enduring efforts. I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, for his work as immigration minister during those times, ensuring that those people could come to Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Venn-Brown, Ms Hannah</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge Hannah Venn-Brown of Springfield for her 21 years of service at Services Australia supporting all employees, particularly those of the LGBTQIA+ community. Hannah is an HR professional in the department and manages its HR strategy team. Hannah is also the co-chair of the agency's Rainbow Roundtable and is a proud ally, helping foster inclusive work environments that are supportive of everyone. Hannah is a passionate leader who recently spoke at the 2024 Public Sector LGBTQIA+ Leadership and Allyship Summit and has also featured in the 2023 <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the service</inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline>. More recently, Hannah was nominated as a finalist in the 2024 Australian LGBTQ+ Inclusion Awards where she was in the running for the Sally Webster Ally Award. This award recognises the outstanding contribution of an individual who has made significant contributions to workplace inclusion as an active ally and supporter of LGBTQIA+ people and employees.</para>
<para>LGBTQIA+ Australians continue to navigate discrimination in the workplace and in the community. Data from the Australian Human Rights Commission records that six in 10 LGBTQIA+ Australians experience verbal homophobic abuse and two in 10 experience physical homophobic abuse. In the workplace, 42 per cent do not feel like they can be transparent about who they are. These factors culminate in the community being at three times greater risk of depression. As a medical professional, I see firsthand the effects of discrimination and the impacts that they have on individuals. Allies like Hannah help create welcoming environments and a more inclusive society, which reduces the prevalence of discrimination and fosters a harmonious environment. I commend Hannah on her allyship and dedication to supporting the LGBTQIA+ community, the members at Service Australia and people right across the Central Coast.</para>
<para>Hannah, it was an absolute pleasure meeting you and learning about the work that you do at Services Australia and throughout our community on the Central Coast. Thank you for enriching our community and for always showing love for everyone no matter their background and no matter their circumstances. As the federal member for Robertson, I will always call out discrimination and hate in our community. I want my community to know that my office is a safe space for anyone and everyone. We welcome anyone and everyone, and my team will happily assist with matters. Again, to Hannah Venn-Brown, thank you for all the work that you continue to do as part of Services Australia and for all the amazing and inclusive support you provide to the LGBTQIA+ community members right across the Central Coast.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>123</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7186" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>123</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When we came to government, DVA, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, was chronically underfunded. That's why this budget, handed down by the Treasurer a few weeks ago, is a further example of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to making sure that our veterans and their families get the support and benefits not only that they need but that they deserve.</para>
<para>When we came to government, some 42,000 claims with the Department of Veterans' Affairs had not even been allocated to somebody within the department to look at. That backlog was causing anguish and distress for our veterans and their families. It meant that claims were taking years to assess and years to process. As the member for Calare, the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the former government, pointed out, this was because the former government was 'only prioritising funding that had a political advantage', which points out the complete lack of faith and the complete lack of support that the previous government had for veterans and the way in which they didn't prioritise what they needed.</para>
<para>When we go back to what we inherited and what that meant for processing times, it meant that, for an initial liability claim under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—this is one of the three pieces of legislation that supports our veterans' entitlements system—which is the most common claim that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has to deal with, it was taking on average 332 days just to allocate the claim for somebody to look at. It meant that the total processing time was some 441 days.</para>
<para>In our first budget in government, in October 2022, we funded an additional 500 staff for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In this budget, handed down just a few weeks ago, we funded an additional 141 permanent staff for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is because we're not just committed to getting rid of the backlog; we're committed to making sure that we keep it gone and that we bring down processing times.</para>
<para>Now we're able to show that all claims that are lodged with the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be looked at by somebody within 14 days, and that's averaging, since December, at just six. It also means that, when we look at the time from December through to the end of April, we are averaging a total processing time of just 60 days. That's down from 441 days to just 60 days.</para>
<para>Of course, thousands of veterans have had to wait longer than that because their claims were stuck in that backlog that we inherited from the previous government, but we have now eradicated that backlog. Those claims are being processed. Some of those claims are taking time to process because, as you would expect, things have evolved over quite a while in their claims and in their conditions—in the years that their claims were sitting in that backlog. So further information has been required and further tests need to be undertaken, but we're getting about doing that job.</para>
<para>We also saw a situation which made this problem worse where a third of the people involved in processing claims were labour hire. For them it meant they had no job security, which also meant that they would leave frequently—understandably. But, when it takes six months to train a delegate, that continual churn of labour hire was inhibiting the effectiveness of the department. Now there are just 10 labour hire personnel in all of claims processing. That means we are a much more effective team. Processing this backlog means that veterans are getting what they need and deserve. That means that in this budget we are spending an additional $6.5 billion on benefits and support going to veterans and families, and we don't shy away from that; that is a good thing.</para>
<para>But the reason for that is the built-up demand of veterans and families not getting the support they should have received if the department had been properly resourced by the previous government. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply speech, said that we should be cutting back on this expenditure, that we should be cutting back on these staff numbers that are actually there to make sure veterans and families get what they need and deserve. Shame.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To all those who continue to serve—our veterans and your families—the freedoms we enjoy today are on the back of hard-fought battles, wars and sacrifice you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget' and we reaffirm that we will never forget those who have been killed in battle, died in training or succumbed to the war within back here on home soil. On Remembrance Day we say, 'The guns fell silent.' But the guns haven't been silent since. In natural disasters—fires, floods, cyclones—our brave men and women are there, and in peacekeeping missions: East Timor, Fiji, the Solomon Islands; our brave men and women are there. And in combat operations—world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.—our brave men and women are there.</para>
<para>And it's not good enough when, on Anzac Day or Remembrance Day, politicians run to the first person they see who is in uniform or has medals on their chest to get a photo, post it on social media, then set and forget. There is so much more that needs to be done and so much action that needs to happen—because it won't be people in this place who will find themselves on the battlefield; it'll be our brave men and women, who will stand side by side with our allies, with the Australian flag on their shoulder and there will to win, with their country behind them. They know there is no substitute for victory and that second best means death on the battlefield. They need a government that stands up for them, a government that stands beside them and, most importantly, a government that has their back. Sadly, we have not seen that from this Labor government.</para>
<para>I'll give two examples. A Chinese naval ship deployed its sonar against Australian Navy divers, injuring them. What did the defence minister or the Prime Minister do? Nothing. Only days after this event, the Prime Minister of Australia met with Xi Jinping. Did he raise this? Did he stand up for our service men and women? No. Did he say, 'We will not put up with this anymore; this is an act of aggression'? No; he didn't. Fast-forward just a couple of months later. A Chinese fighter jet fired its flares on an Australian Navy helicopter. Experts have said that if these flares had hit this helicopter it would have had to ditch in the water or crash. A few things happen when a helicopter crashes in water. It normally hits at speed. It goes upside down quickly, and it sinks at about six metres per second. This could have been catastrophic for our people. Did the defence minister or the Prime Minister pick up the phone and call Xi Jinping or the defence minister of China? No; they didn't—once again, not standing up for our people. We heard words from the defence minister like, 'Oh, well; that was unprofessional.' Well, thanks, genius! We know it was unprofessional, but they put the lives of our people in danger. You should have been more strong and should have publicly said, 'We will not put up with this; this is an act of aggression'—stand up for our people.</para>
<para>We've seen more failure from this defence minister when it comes to cutting LAND 400 Phase 3, from 450 armoured vehicles to 129. Did you speak to the end user about this, or did you just look at the bottom line and slash it? The minister's nodding his head, but no, you didn't, because you announced on Kapyong Day, which is 3RAR's most sacred day, who would get these infantry fighting vehicles, and they knew nothing about it. You're speaking to the wrong people. You're making cuts where you shouldn't. You're not talking to the end user. You're more worried about what the generals say here in Canberra.</para>
<para>And we saw yesterday an absolute debacle of a defence policy coming from the Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who's clearly not across his brief. He had to get his dad, Richard Marles, to come out and mop it up for him! You said, 'People from Five Eyes, the Pacific and every other nation can join our ADF.' Well, it turns out that's not the case.</para>
<para>You're not across your brief, and there are so many questions that need to be answered. One of these questions is: when will the government provide a meaningful increase in Defence spending, an increase that comes now, not buried beyond the forward estimates, to ensure the ADF is ready to face up to the current threat? The continual mismanagement of our ADF by this government has reverberated through all of our communities. The DSR did not say, 'Get rid of the south to bolster the north.' The DSR did not say, 'Cut money from Army to fund AUKUS.' You need to do better; you need to put the Australian Defence Force before your own personal interests.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate of Macquarie has an active veterans community, and we have both Richmond and Glenbrook RAF bases. This budget provides around $30 million for additional airfield maintenance work at the Richmond base, which will be home to the growing fleet of Hercs following our announcement last year of the $9.8 billion program to purchase 20 new C-130J Hercs in coming years. In the meantime, I welcome the funding for deeper maintenance and planned upgrades to existing aircraft that will sustain them until the first new Herc arrives.</para>
<para>Because so many Defence personnel have their work in my electorate it means so many retired personnel also call it home. I'm proud to have more than 2,000 DVA clients in my electorate. Earlier this year I welcomed the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to Richmond, where he announced funding for the Veterans' and Families' Hub, delivering on a commitment I made in the run-up to the 2022 election. This will make it easier for veterans in Macquarie and across north-west Sydney, and their families, to access the practical support that they deserve.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is continuing to invest in veteran support with an additional $477 million in this budget for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to support the more than 340,000 veterans and their dependents around the country. We're delivering on our commitment to simplified and harmonised veteran compensation legislation, which was the first recommendation of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide. This is important reform.</para>
<para>And as well as the simplifying and harmonising of the legislative framework for veterans compensation and rehabilitation, we're reducing the complexity of the system, speeding up the time taken to process claims, meeting the continued growth in claims and addressing other service delivery pressures. There is investment to address critical gaps in our IT systems to help reduce the time veterans and families have to wait to receive support and services, and improvements in accessing benefits and supports.</para>
<para>The 2024-25 budget includes $222 million of additional funding for veteran and family entitlements and supports that have been made available through this new simplified veteran compensation legislation, ensuring veterans and their families can better understand and access the supports that they are entitled to much faster. The budget will boost veterans homecare and community nursing programs with an additional $48.4 million in funding, so there are no gaps in service delivery.</para>
<para>The royal commission has created a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver meaningful and long-lasting change to the way we support our veteran communities, and this government is committed to addressing its recommendations. Investments in this budget ensure funding for DVA remains at a record high. It's now better funded than it has been in 30 years, and it means we will improve the experience of veterans and families who reach out to DVA for assistance.</para>
<para>Recent years have seen substantial growth in the demand for DVA services, which has resulted in a backlog of unallocated claims and significant delays in claims processing across a range of benefits and services, and those opposite knew about that. I was horrified to learn, when we came to government in 2022, that there were 42,000 claims that had not even been looked at.</para>
<para>Minister Keogh has explained that there were a large number of labour hire staff and there was a high degree of churn in that workforce, and it takes a long time to get them trained. So that's why, in recognising the important role that the Public Service plays in delivering services for Australians, we've invested nearly $234 million to engage 500 new frontline staff at DVA, to eliminate the veteran compensation claims backlog, in our very first budget in October 2022. Now all of those claims have been assessed or are currently being assessed, and we've brought down the time it takes to do those assessments. Compared to this time last year, we're now doing those two months faster than they used to be done, and we're continuing to try and bring this down. We've converted a large labour hire workforce into actual public servants, properly trained, so we're able to deliver to veterans and their families the services that they deserve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister for Veterans' Affairs, thank you for coming to Wagga Wagga last November to announce money for RSL LifeCare and for Pro Patria; I appreciate that. But, after two years in office, the budget confirms that Labor has no plans to extend the veterans hubs, with the budget papers showing that all the money for the program will dry up in two years. Just $11.6 million will be committed to veterans hubs in 2024-25, compared to $34.1 million last year and reducing to zero in 2026-27. Australians—our veterans—deserve better.</para>
<para>This was the third budget where veterans will pay a price for losing their voice in cabinet under Labor. Now, I am standing in for the shadow minister for veterans' affairs; the shadow minister is here, but he's unwell. But, as Deputy Prime Minister, I had put the veterans portfolio into cabinet by June 2019. When Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister, the first decision was to dump the Minister for Veterans' Affairs from cabinet. This budget confirms the ramifications of that decision. Your portfolio, Minister, should be in cabinet. Veterans should have a voice around the big table.</para>
<para>The budget confirms Labor will miss the 2025 deadline set by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to reform, streamline and harmonise veterans entitlements. No budget provision has been made for a new scheme to come into effect by 1 July 2025, as stipulated by the interim report of the royal commission. The royal commission is set to hand down its final report on 9 September. However, in August 2022, the commission handed down an interim report so the government could urgently address critical recommendations. We feel that this is not happening fast enough. And it may well be because of the fact that Veterans' Affairs is not in cabinet.</para>
<para>A question for the minister: Budget Paper No. 1 says: 'The Government will provide $222.0 million to harmonise veterans' compensation and rehabilitation legislation'—it's on page 31. I would like the minister to provide details on what makes up that cost for each of the forward-year estimates. What changes have been costed that specifically equate to $222 million? Could you please answer that.</para>
<para>On staffing: overall total DVA resourcing will be cut by about $19 million from $797 million in 2023-24 to $778 million this coming year. While the minister issued a press release claiming Labor is investing $186 million to employ an additional 141 staff to ensure there is no veterans claims backlog, there is no evidence—none—in the budget papersto support this. Page 16 of the PBS Budget Related Paper No. 1.4B for DVA shows, in fact, the opposite. It shows that staffing numbers will actually drop in DVA during 2024-25. Of the net 36,000 growth in public servants that Labor is budgeting for, we now know that none of that net growth will be for our veterans. A question for you, Minister: can you identify where the 141 apparent extra staff appear in the budget papers and over what period of time, given page 16 of that paper shows that the department will experience a decrease of 78 ASL staff in 2024-25 compared to this year. And, Minister, what sections are those ASL staff being cut from? I appreciate that you are staying—that's good—because you can hear the rest of it.</para>
<para>The claims backlog peaked in August 2022, under Labor, with 45,226 claims—over 3,000 more than at the change of government, unlike the previous speaker's account. Those are the facts. Since then, the 2024-25 budget papers refer to having cleared the backlog of unallocated compensation claims in DVA. It's important to understand that the government's definition of clearing a claim does not mean it is being assessed, finalised and paid. It is simply not good enough.</para>
<para>I want to go to a couple of other quick things in the time left. Labor has also put the veteran chaplaincy program on life support, with just over $1 million for a one-year extension as it is being reviewed. This is an important program, and I would urge you to reconsider that, perhaps when the Prime Minister puts you in the cabinet. Unmarked war graves—Labor has no plans to reinstate the $2.9 million it stripped from the World War I unmarked war grave program. Ahead of the election, Labor promised $3.7 million to match the coalition's commitment to the program. That pledge has been cut to $800,000, spread over four years. It is simply not good enough. This is from a government that in its first year of office made the Anzac Day public holiday optional and exchangeable for Commonwealth public servants. Shame on you for that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our veterans and their families have sacrificed so much for our nation. Many of them are our nurses, farmers, teachers and emergency service personnel. They come from every walk of life. They have served on our shores and abroad, and, upon returning home, many face a battle that tragically is not always won. And so we believe it is the role of government to ensure our veterans don't fight this battle alone.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Corangamite, there are almost 4,000 veterans who receive and deserve our support. It's this principle that's enshrined in our latest budget. Our government has allocated an additional $477 million to ensure veterans and their families get the support they need and deserve. This is a significant investment, and it's all about supporting our veterans and clearing the backlog of claims created under the former coalition government. When we came to office, DVA had around 42,000 claims—that's 42,000 claims—that were unresolved, with many more that hadn't been picked up or actioned. The fact of the matter is that the DVA was underresourced and its staff needed much more support. Our government recognised this and the important role that the Australian public service plays in delivering services for veterans. In our first budget, we invested more than $233 million to employ 500 new frontline staff at DVA. Now, we're investing a further $186 million towards the employment of an additional 141 staff to ensure backlogs don't re-emerge and to process claims faster.</para>
<para>In the weeks 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, the coalition has been very quiet when it comes to discussing the additional $6.5 billion included in our budget to pay out veterans compensation claims. What they see as a cost blowout we see as a result of our government reducing the claims backlog to zero, a feat only possible through the DVA receiving staffing and resourcing levels it hasn't seen in 30 years.</para>
<para>The 2024-25 budget also delivers an additional $220 million to deliver our government's simplified veterans compensation legislation. Earlier this year, Minister Keogh released an exposure draft of the legislation to ensure veterans and their families can raise their voices and contribute to the final bill. I sent copies of this draft legislation to every RSL branch across my electorate—because who better to consult than those the bill is designed to support? On top of this, all veterans in the workforce will now receive a tax cut, just like every other Australian worker. Every household that a veteran calls home will receive $300 of energy bill relief. Every veteran in an aged-care home will be cared for by workers, who are now better supported themselves, with a registered nurse onsite 24/7. This budget also boosts veterans home care and community nursing programs with an additional $48.4 million to ensure there are no gaps in service delivery.</para>
<para>Of course, we're also proud to be delivering veterans and families hubs right across this nation, with one now underway in my region. The hub will be easily accessible to veterans. It will have a focus on financial advice, health and wellbeing and will offer much-needed outreach to veterans, who at times miss out on the support they need.</para>
<para>I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge all of my local RSL sub-branches: in Torquay, Geelong, Waurn Ponds, Inverleigh, Bannockburn, Portarlington-St Leonards, Queenscliff-Point Lonsdale, Ocean Grove-Barwon Heads, Drysdale and Leopold. You have all played a significant role in this process.</para>
<para>In closing, I would like to thank Minister Keogh for all the work he does in this important area, where we support our veterans. Our government is making good on our commitment to better support veterans and their families across Australia, and I thank them for their service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'If they won't fight for us, why would we fight for them?' Those were the words that were said to me just a couple of days ago by a group of diggers that I was talking with. They complained to me that morale in the ADF, particularly in the Army, is at an all-time low. Why do you think that is? Let me tell you. I asked this group of gentlemen what, if they could be minister for defence for a day, they would do.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, to be fair, it wasn't that. They said, 'We would get rid of all of the woke insert-expletive-here that is infecting the ADF.' These guys weren't officers but diggers—good, hardworking young diggers. Whenever I go on an ADFPP, I always search that sort of person out, because they will sock me in the face and tell it to me straight as to what their views are about where the ADF might be going wrong. They will always tell me honestly. It wasn't, 'Spend more money here or there.' It was, 'Get rid of all this woke BS insert-expletive.'</para>
<para>Morale is an all-time low. Under this government, we are now 5,000 personnel under strength in our full-time ADF. This government and this Minister for Defence, under the <inline font-style="italic">DSR</inline>, gutted the order for infantry fighting vehicles from 450 down to 129. They gutted two-thirds of the order for infantry fighting vehicles. What does that say to a digger? That says: 'We don't value you. We're going to send you out but not give you the protection that you deserve.'</para>
<para>Why else is morale so low, apart from the gutting of the order for infantry fighting vehicles? I've never served in the Army, but I reckon that, if I were ever in a firefight with an enemy, I'd want to know that there was some artillery that would back me up. What does this lot do? They scrap the planned second regiment of self-propelled howitzers. We don't need them, they reckon. The Minister for Defence may not need them but do you reckon the diggers will or might? Hopefully, they never will.</para>
<para>Do you know why else morale is so low? Funnily enough, ADF members read newspapers. When they read that this government doesn't back their naval personnel—like our naval aviators in the Seahawk that had China's People's Liberation Army Air Force dropping flares in front of their helicopter, putting at risk its crew—how do you reckon that goes down with ADF personnel? How do you reckon it goes down when the same thing happens with Navy divers off HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Toowoomba</inline>?</para>
<para>Morale is at an all-time low because our members of the ADF don't believe that this government has their back. It's interesting that the Minister for Defence isn't here, so it's good to see the Minister for Defence Industry is here. Chances are he's here because he's the only one who hasn't been caught up in this confusion about what's been going on in relation to personnel, but that's for another day. My question to you, Minister standing in for 'MinDef', is: what are you going to do to lift the morale of the ADF? At the moment it is appallingly low.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member opposite for his contribution and his question. What we're doing to support the ADF is evident. What we're doing is record resourcing of the ADF. We are matching our rhetoric with action—something those opposite failed to do in 9½ long years in government. I don't question the patriotism of those opposite. I think they're all firmly committed to serving this nation; you wouldn't be in this place otherwise. I note that I am talking in front of four members of the opposition, three of whom are veterans, and I honour their service and thank them for what they have done for this country. But rhetoric must be matched by action, and that's what the Albanese government is doing in record resourcing of the ADF in the most strategically challenging circumstances since the Second World War.</para>
<para>We've increased the defence budget by $50 billion over the next decade, with $5.7 billion coming in the first four years. Under our new IIP, 10 per cent of the new funding flows in the first four years. When those opposite released their new IIP in 2016, only five per cent of the new funding was in the first four years. So, if anyone opposite gets up and talks about it being backloaded, I would argue that they are being incredibly hypocritical. Importantly, within two years, two-thirds of the new funding from those opposite was taken back from defence into consolidated revenue. Their actions demonstrated a lack of commitment to the defence of the nation.</para>
<para>What this increased resourcing enables us to do is a more than doubling of the surface fleet—moving from a surface fleet of 11 to 12 major surface combatants to one with 26—and accelerating that, so that we will be cutting the steel on the general-purpose frigate in 2026. It will be delivered in 2029 and in service in 2030—the fastest acquisition of a major surface asset in the history of the nation or, certainly, since World War II. We've brought forward incredibly significant projects for the Australian Army. The infantry fighting vehicle will be brought forward by a couple of years, so much so that we will have finished the production line before those opposite would have delivered one. I'll give a tip to the member for Fisher: 129 is more than one. We will have our entire production line done before you would have produced one. We've brought forward the landing craft, medium, by two years and we brought forward landing craft, heavy, by seven years as part of the transformation of the Australian Army into one focused on littoral manoeuvre, a key recommendation of the Defence Strategic Review. We're also focusing on long-range strike for the Australian Army—and I respect the former speaker's contribution about self-propelled howitzers. We're moving from an Australian Army whose longest-range weapon is 40 kilometres to one that will have long-range strike in excess of 500 kilometres. That is a massive exercise. We're bringing forward the acquisition of HIMARS, and establishing Australian missile manufacturing industry in this country. We'll be making missiles from 2025 onwards. These are all important contributions to the defence of the nation.</para>
<para>I'm going to spend my remaining time talking about what the test is for the opposition—the alternative government. We're a year out from an election. It's time to go from carping about what we're doing to presenting alternative policies, so I'll make a couple of suggestions. First, you should apologise for the fraud you perpetrated amongst the defence industry and the people of this nation by adding $42 billion worth of spending commitments—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw so I can keep time. They need to apologise for adding $42 billion of spending commitments without adding a single dollar to the IIP or rescheduling other projects or rescoping. That was massively detrimental to the defence industry.</para>
<para>Secondly, they need to commit to matching Labor's commitment of $50 billion. The opposition spokesperson is here. He's been rolled by so many people in the shadow ERC. He went out saying they'd matched Labor's $50 billion commitment. The member for Hume, on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline>, contradicted that. Senator Jane Hume contradicted that. The opposition spokesperson can't point to a single decision from the shadow cabinet matching our $50 billion. The best I've heard is that he got a text from the opposition leader when he was about to get on a plane. Seriously? That's how you're matching our funding commitments?</para>
<para>So, my challenge to the opposition spokesperson is: demonstrate it by pointing out where you're doing it. The opposition leader couldn't even mention it in his budget reply. The truth is that only Labor is committed to the defence of the nation. Only Labor has allocated sufficient resources to do that job. Only Labor is serious about defence.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my colleagues who are here from all sides, particularly the previous speaker, who gave an impassioned speech, and the members for Canning and Herbert, who are my good friends, and we also served in various capacities and times. One of the things those of us who have served in uniform know, as well as those of us who know someone who serves in uniform, is that there is a moment in time when the seed is planted. We heard this at the tragic funeral of Jack Fitzgibbon, when his dad stood up and said that the moment his son, Jack, first thought about it was when he saw an Army truck moving around the electorate. That inspired him. And we know that there were various seeds in our minds that made us think about it. But there's a window where a young person, a young man or woman from one of the many corners of this country, wants to turn that seed into action. They go onto the website or they call 131901, and they're keen; they're ready to get started. This is the moment in time when they want to give everything to that.</para>
<para>So when I hear that at the moment the contractor who's supposed to process those applications has pushed them out to 300 days, I know that that is a key factor in why we are short by 5,000 full-time Defence Force members. I want you to picture what 5,000 is. We've got a target of 64,000, so 5,000 is roughly one in 12. Imagine a dozen Defence Force members, and there's one missing. There's one missing in every dozen Defence Force members throughout the nation—one in a dozen. At a time when we hear both sides, particularly the government, talking about the unprecedented strategic threat we face, they are sitting there in charge, two years in, with one in a dozen missing.</para>
<para>Yet what are their priorities? What are they doing about it? We saw in the budget an increase in public servants by 36,000. So, on one hand we're short of 5,000 people who are prepared to do the most dangerous, serious work to keep us safe, and on the other we have prioritised 36,000 public servants. That's not a criticism of public servants, and many of those 36,000 are needed, including some in DVA, of course. No-one's saying that; we won't accept that straw man argument. But it is unacceptable, at this moment in time, in this moment in history and with this threat, to sit there and say that that level of recruiting is adequate.</para>
<para>So, what are you doing about it? We heard in the last few days some thought bubbles about expanding the pool of potential recruits, and there may be some merit to that. But, again, minister after minister has left us feeling that they are not across their brief, that they didn't read the materials of that day, that they didn't check with their friends and colleagues in the relevant portfolios and that they didn't do the work. I don't know what ministers in this government do when they wake up every day, but I would have thought that the first thing you do is read the papers, talk to your colleagues in the relevant areas and then, when you go on the media, at least be consistent, if for nothing else than political reasons.</para>
<para>But this isn't just about politics; it's about national security. And I will say, as someone not born here, that the opportunity to serve in uniform as a migrant is one of the greatest honours I've had, as well as my way of giving back. Again and again I meet young Australians who weren't born here who have come from all corners of this earth, and they are desperate to serve. But, when they make that call or click that website and they're told to wait 300 days, guess what people of talent and action do. They go somewhere else. So we are losing people of talent and action who want to give to this nation at the moment in time of their life when it matters and for whom it's not happening.</para>
<para>In the last minute of my time, my questions are: What has the government done to hold Adecco to account for not bringing the processing time from 300 days to 100 days? What are you doing? What else are you doing about recruiting beyond a thought bubble? This should be a full-court press by every minister, including the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the minister himself. In fact, the Prime Minister should be asking for a daily brief about where our recruiting strategy is. What are you doing to fill the gap of one in 12? He shouldn't be going to sleep at night knowing that that exists right now. It's unacceptable.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've never heard such a contradiction in terms as I just have from the member for Menzies. On one hand, he described the government's recent initiatives to recruit more people and invite people from our Five Eyes allies to serve with us here in Australia. At the same time, he said it was the greatest honour of his life as someone born overseas to serve for us. I respect your service enormously, Member for Menzies. There is a certain timeframe when an incoming government talks about what has preceded it. It is certainly legitimate to talk about what has preceded us. I was elected here in 2016 as the member for Paterson, and I have the great honour of having RAAF Base Williamtown, the home of the F-35A—a wonderful aircraft and capability for our country—in my electorate. Of the 72 we will have, 54 of them will be located in my seat, at Williamtown. I know the base intimately, and I again pay my deepest respects and thanks to those who pull on the uniform at Williamtown every day.</para>
<para>It is of utmost importance that we absolutely have recruitment. When I got elected, I made it my business to find out the business of the military in my seat. One of the things that was absolutely obvious, not only through me talking to people in service in my seat but also through me being on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, was that we had a massive hole in defence. We knew it in 2016. The government of 2016 knew it. When I talked to military people, they were saying, 'We need to recruit more people.' We were constantly reminding every minister—I might remind those present today that over the preceding nine years of government we had six defence ministers; come on, let's talk about continuity—and, in that time, the service categories were never properly addressed, the way that we recruited people was difficult and clunky and we weren't looking at the way people move through their lives when they have families.</para>
<para>We are now looking at this. I want to thank the military. I want to thank the public servants who are working hand in hand with those who are in the military to understand service categories, to make it better and to actually think about how we need people. I just want to indulge for a moment because we're talking about Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon and his service to his nation. I had the great privilege of going to Holsworthy and meeting with those commandos. I knew Jack. I know his father even better. I talked to those people, but I talked to their boss. He said to me: 'Meryl, it's so interesting. When we talk about recruitment in the military, 10 years ago I wasn't thinking about the blue-haired guy drinking Mountain Dew in a basement working on a computer as being one of my people. Now I am.' That's what we have to do. We have to be more flexible in our thinking. This government has brought that flexibility of thinking to the table. We are talking to the military. We know what they need. We know that things are changing not only vastly but incredibly quickly.</para>
<para>We know that we sit at a time in our history when it has never been more important to have our defence fully subscribed. We know we need that. We are absolutely front-footing it. I will tell you, member for Menzies, what ministers do when they get out of bed every morning: they think. They look down that barrel and they think, 'How can we get more people into our military?' We are coming up with good ideas to recruit people. I cannot help but think describing inviting friends from Five Eyes countries who live here to be part of our military as a thought bubble.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An opposition member interjecting</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, that's what he said. Also, I can't help but engender the spirit of Anzac. No-one was thumbing their nose at the New Zealanders in the First World War when we stood shoulder to shoulder and formed that incredible bond that we still hold and stand with 100 years later. We were proud to stand with our New Zealand friends in 1914 and beyond. I can tell you everyone I speak to in our current modern military is more than happy to welcome our friends from New Zealand, from our Five Eyes partners, to be in our modern military, because we recognise we do need them. What we have is a forward-thinking government that wants to look after our military. We know we need to be flexible, we know we need to be surefooted and, the most important thing is, we know that we need to spend the money and that's what we are doing, so we are working with our Five Eyes partners and we are answering the call of our country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a privilege to participate in this debate this morning alongside the member for Menzies, the member for Herbert and those opposite as well. We don't question your motives. Certainly, we think that you are here for the same reasons we are—you want a stronger Australia. We just question your competence, your sense of mission, your sense of purpose and your drive. The Minister for Defence Industry, who spoke only 10 minutes ago, said, 'Rhetoric must be matched by action.' We will judge you by your actions. Sadly, there is a yawning gulf between Labor's rhetoric and the actions they are taking to defend Australia and to build us and our security over the next decade.</para>
<para>Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister, with all the usual fanfare, pomp and pageantry, announced the National Defence Strategy at the National Press Club. He had a glowing press gallery. He got up once again and said, 'Australia is facing the most dangerous strategic circumstances since the end of the Second World War.' And he said—again, to use his highfalutin language—'We will use impactful projection across the full spectrum of proportionate response.' The question is, though, how are they going to do that? How they going to fund that? You'd expect after giving the Australian public such a dire warning about strategic circumstances that there would be immediate investment, there would be crash action, there would be all hands, they would be mobilising defence industry, there would be a sense of mission and there would be immediate funding over the forward estimates. Well, they've made announcements about defence funding over the next 10 years, $50.3 billion, which is three electoral cycles. The Deputy Prime Minister, I doubt, would be in parliament 10 years from now. He may well be but it's unlikely given the pace of modern politics. So he can't actually ensure that the money will be spent that way nor can he guarantee that the projects he is promising will be delivered.</para>
<para>Let's come back to the forward estimates. There is $5.7 billion from this government over the forward estimates, and $3.8 billion of that $5.7 billion is invested in year 4 of the forwards. There is less than $1 billion spent over the next three years in each year, so they are not actually serious about getting us ready for the challenges that we are facing as a country. I think the sad truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister is a show horse and not a plough horse. He likes trotting out when people are watching but, when there's work to be done, he will not come out of the barn, and that's the bottom line. This government is about smoke and mirrors.</para>
<para>Yesterday, at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Deputy Prime Minister sat there on the stage regaling us about his time at Shangri-La. He said it's Disneyland for defence ministers. I think we can agree that the defence portfolio is not Disneyland, because, if you fail on the battlefield, your opponents will crush you. This is very important stuff we're talking about and this is not about gloss and good times; it's about serious planning for the country and about making sure that we are ready, which is why I'm concerned that he got up in the National Defence Strategy and said the 10-year warning time is no longer valid. Yet, if you look at the budget, that 10-year warning time planning assumption is baked in, because all the money is in the next 10 years, not the forward estimates, and that is a big problem.</para>
<para>So what are we seeing across the board? We're seeing a decline in morale. We're seeing an understrength ADF. The CDF only minutes ago said that ADF numbers are 5,300 short—a 10 per shortage for their workforce. Recruiting is going backwards. We're not retaining enough people, and what did we see yesterday? We saw a very ham-fisted plan to fix the problem hatched by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Personnel. It was quite amusing to watch. They got up with, again, lots of fanfare and lots of trumpeting this great news. They said it's crossing the Rubicon. Well, they are crossing the Rubicon, and it turns out they can't swim and they don't have a life raft either, because the Minister for Defence Personnel got up yesterday and said, 'From 1 January, we're going to be recruiting from all countries. Permanent residents from all countries will be able to join the ADF and get citizenship within 90 days.'</para>
<para>It turns out that, this morning in Defence estimates—after the Deputy Prime Minister tried to unsuccessfully clean this up yesterday—Defence officials couldn't even confirm who is going to be eligible for enlisting in the ADF from 1 January. So, in the biggest Defence recruiting policy change since Federation, we still don't understand what this government is on about. They have botched this policy, and it just shows that they're all about the message but not about delivery. Their rhetoric is big and bold, but in the end they don't match it with the competence, the drive and the sense of mission we expect from these people sitting opposite.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just remind members about inputs and not reflecting on members.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When the Albanese government was elected, we undertook the most comprehensive review of the posture and preparedness of the Australian Defence Force in the last two decades, the Defence Strategic Review. That indicated that the Australian Defence Force was not fit for purpose to defend our nation and to meet the challenges of the future.</para>
<para>So the government is fixing that. We've developed a plan to ensure that we can fix that issue of preparedness of the Australian Defence Force, and we'd like to work with the opposition to achieve that aim. When it comes to defence, the defence of our nation should be above politics. It should be bipartisan. We shouldn't be taking pot shots at each other over petty little things here in this chamber. We should be trying to work together. So we've got a plan, and we'd like to work with the opposition.</para>
<para>You can summarise the plan with three words: we're investing in people, power and posture of the Australian Defence Force to ensure that it's ready to meet the challenges of the future. What are we doing to invest in people? We know that the Australian Defence Force is underpowered by about 5,000 troops. We know that, and we know that our people are our greatest asset. So we're making changes to ensure that we can recruit more Australians and we can retain more Australians in the Australian Defence Force.</para>
<para>That's why we introduced the $50,000 retention bonus. That's why we're changing a lot of the housing policies to provide more flexibility for ADF members around their housing options. That's why we legislated to improve the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. That's why we're doing more to support families of Australian Defence Force members, making it more flexible for them to support their spouses' careers and more options to support their children, and why we're supporting the great work of people like Gwen Cherne, the defence families advocate, and Kahlil Fegan, the Repatriation Commissioner. They are advising the government about how we can improve the career prospects and the family oriented nature of the Australian Defence Force.</para>
<para>Those policies are starting to bear fruit. We know that the retention problems that we had under the previous government, with record numbers leaving the Australian Defence Force, are now coming down. We need to do more to recruit, and that's what yesterday's announcements were about—trying to open up the Australian Defence Force to more Australians.</para>
<para>In terms of power, we're investing an additional $5.7 billion over the forward estimates and $50 billion over the decade, on top of the proposed expenditure of the previous government. That is an additional $50 billion investment by this government in improving the power and the strike capability of the Australian Defence Force. It's all aimed at ensuring that we have the power to deter potential adversaries, particularly within our region. It's led by AUKUS, which was an initiative of the previous government that this government has continued and has put the plan in place to deliver.</para>
<para>We recently saw some announcements regarding the surface combatant fleet and improving the lethality of that. Now when it comes to AUKUS, it's the largest industrial endeavour that our nation has ever undertaken and we will need to do that in partnership with industry. I know the member for Warringah has some questions about that, which we're happy to answer. It will be through the Defence Industry Development Strategy and through ASCA that companies such as the ones in the member for Warringah's electorate will get the opportunity to participate in AUKUS and in other endeavours.</para>
<para>We're ensuring that we're investing in the short term as well. Here are some of the investments that we're making in the short term. We're about to receive 20 new C-130 aircraft. We're investing in GWEO—guided weapons and explosive ordnance. We're acquiring Tomahawk missiles, and they'll be manufactured here in Australia. We're acquiring the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System—HIMARS—in the next four years. We're investing in more Redback infantry fighting vehicles. There's the REDSPICE program, which will improve our cyber capability.</para>
<para>The final area is the posture of the Australian Defence Force. We're basically upgrading every single base across the north of Australia, getting major upgrades from Scherger, in the north of Queensland, right through to Learmonth, in the north of Western Australia. Every single one of those bases will get an upgrade to improve the capability and capacity of the Australian Defence Force.</para>
<para>This government is making investments in the Australian Defence Force through that additional $50 billion, which will see it grow to about 2.3 per cent of GDP over the decade, ensuring that we improve the people, the power and the posture of the Australian Defence Force.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We live in a very volatile geopolitical era. A catastrophic war rages in the Middle East and has heightened regional tensions. We've seen the horrific taking of hostages by Hamas and we must use all possible diplomatic pathways to unequivocally call on the Israeli government to uphold the international rule of law, keep civilians safe and encourage all sides to agree to a permanent ceasefire. The war in Ukraine continues; after two years, Australia remains a steadfast ally of Ukraine in the face of needless Russian aggression. Australia has now contributed more than $1 billion in total assistance to Ukraine, including some $880 million in military support. And we continue to see increasingly belligerent and authoritarian behaviour from China in the South China Sea showing little regard for international norms. And then there is the threat from climate change, and I have an ongoing request for the government to release the Office of National Intelligence report in relation to Australia's exposure from a security point of view. That is a backdrop that we face.</para>
<para>The new money in the budget in relation to Defence—this is appropriation and so this is why we're here, to ask these questions. The new money allocated to Defence as part of this year's budget totals are some $5.7 billion. It is a huge part of our budget. It focuses on three priorities: the AUKUS submarines, surface warships, and long-range strike targeting and autonomous systems.</para>
<para>AUKUS is, at its core, a technology-sharing alliance between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. It's also closely linked to the Inflation Reduction Act and to the focus on developing sovereign manufacturing capacity in the world's energy transition, especially for the UK, Australia and the US, and reducing that manufacturing reliance on China. It's essential, within this framework, that substantial opportunity flows to Australian industries and companies, especially the smaller ones that are traditionally squeezed out by larger, more well-known international companies.</para>
<para>I know there are many questions as to how Australian companies and workers can participate and contribute to our major defence projects and to our nation's national security. I note that as part of this year's budget allocation, there is some $165.7 million put aside to establish a defence industry development grant program. Its funding, according to the government, is to support Australian businesses, to increase their scale and competitiveness, and to respond to capability requirements required within the defence portfolio in the years ahead. This is a worthy aim, but all too often many businesses find the procurement pipeline inaccessible. I have businesses in Warringah that face these challenges, producing, for example, drones and microchips and other capabilities that Defence will need in the coming years. Ironically, all too often they are able to do business overseas more easily than they can in Australia, and that's wrong and should be fixed.</para>
<para>So my questions to the government and to the minister are: How will sovereign Australian businesses be defined in the eligibility criteria for the defence industry development grant program? At present, to be classified as an Australian business, an ABN will suffice. Will the defence industry development grant program require substantially more significant ties to Australia as evidence of being a genuinely Australian business to ensure that we don't have essentially overseas companies benefiting from the grant process? Also, how will Defence ensure Australian businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, get their fair share of opportunities in bidding for the defence industry development grant program? A further question is: how will you, the government, ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises like those I represent in Warringah, including DroneShield and Warringah Plastics, get the industrial uplift to genuinely partake in the defence technology and procurement pipelines that have let so many down to date.</para>
<para>Further, what key industries do you anticipate will benefit from the technology-sharing alliance of AUKUS? It's really important that the government comes out on the front foot and is specific about where those technology uplift areas will be. Finally, AUKUS includes very specific workforce parameters, particularly concerning security clearances and the use of engineers. It is likely to absorb many Australian-born engineers, because migrant engineers are excluded, so what workforce planning is currently being done by the minister to ensure we meet those requirements?</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>133</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Labor government has delivered the most significant budget for the future of Australia's resources sector in a generation. Overall, it's a total investment of over $20 billion. This is a game changer for the Australian resources sector. It will be the bedrock of a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>The government is providing a total of $3.4 billion over 35 years for the Resourcing Australia's Prosperity program. This will enable Geoscience Australia to fully map our nation's geological endowment by 2060. There has never been such a vote of confidence in the geoscience capability and ambition for Australia to grow our resources prosperity. This program will fund precompetitive public geoscience and map all of Australia's critical minerals, strategic materials and alternative energy sources such as hydrogen, and also the groundwater of Australia. We will search for geological storage and other resources essential for the transition to net zero. Precompetitive geoscience comes before private exploration and investment, not instead of it. It lays the groundwork for the private sector to explore and invest private capital in Australia's resources sector.</para>
<para>Related to the resources portfolio is the 10 per cent production tax credit for all 31 critical minerals, which will help drive critical minerals processing and value-adding in Australia, at a value of $17.6 billion over 14 years. This incentive is for processing critical minerals, and it is a zero-risk approach for Australia. If companies don't produce a value-added product, they don't receive a tax credit. If they do, it means they have grown our sovereign capability, they have attracted investment, they have diversified supply chains, they have value-added onshore, and they have grown new jobs in this future made in Australia. These are all good things.</para>
<para>But what do we get from those opposite about these policies? Instead of supporting these sensible policies, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Hume have blitzed southern states' media outlets, attacking production tax credits and the resources policy of this government. There is weird class warfare going on in the Liberal and National parties. It is anti resources, anti Queensland, anti Western Australia and even anti Northern Territory. The thing about critical minerals and rare earths is that they are found in many places, including in the south of the country. So the stance of those opposite will also affect investment and impact development of projects in South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria.</para>
<para>Where are the Liberals and Nationals putting on the handbrake on critical minerals and resources projects? In Western Australia, the member for O'Connor and the member for Durack have had a thing or two to say about this approach. In New South Wales, the member for Parkes has an interest in critical minerals. In Queensland, the member for Flynn also hosts critical minerals projects. The members for Gippsland and Mallee, in Victoria, and the member for Braddon, in Tasmania, might want to register some protest to the view of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this policy.</para>
<para>With our $3.4 billion investment into fully mapping our nation's geological endowment by 2060, I trust there'll be more critical minerals and rare earths in electorates such as Maranoa, New England and Riverina. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! I never imagined the day where I'd see the Liberals and Nationals oppose and take an anti-resources stance to what is a very pro-resources budget.</para>
<para>Those opposite have been absolutely tone deaf to the work the Labor government is doing with key strategic partners such as the United States. We've been working with the Biden administration and senior officials in the US to ensure that Australia is enabled to take steps to support our critical minerals and rare earths industries, because the US and other partners recognise the importance of having diversified supply chains. So the opposition's irrational, quick, brash, unthinking response to production tax credits is truly staggering and shows their lack of understanding of the resources sector in thinking that you can bunch the critical minerals and rare earths thin supply chains and thin international markets with the vast bulk commodities such as iron ore and coal.</para>
<para>The truth is: the coalition have taken the resources sector for granted for far too long, and they have just stopped listening while keeping the cup out for resources sector donations. The opposition Liberal and National parties want to offshore a Future Made in Australia, to do things somewhere else. But this Albanese Labor government will ensure there will be a future made in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australian businesses shutting up shop in record numbers managed to survive the pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression but have clearly been unable to survive this Albanese Labor government. External administrations are at a record high, and manufacturing insolvencies have tripled under this government. Industry is expecting anaemic growth, at or near the lowest levels in a decade. Industry is reporting a decline in new orders at the largest rate since the GFC. CreditorWatch reports invoice defaults at record highs.</para>
<para>This budget was an opportunity for the Albanese government to provide a credible economic plan for struggling Aussie manufacturers, but it has failed to deliver yet again. The Prime Minister promised before the last election:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia can be the land of cheap and endless energy—energy that could power generations of metal manufacturing and other energy intensive manufacturing industries.</para></quote>
<para>Yet, we've seen power prices go up and up and up. So I ask the minister: when will the energy prices our manufacturers have to pay actually start coming down?</para>
<para>At the last election, the government promised a National Reconstruction Fund which would 'rebuild Australia's industrial base', yet, two years on, the NRF has not spent a single dollar on a single project. Embarrassingly, the Prime Minister claimed the NRF was open for business when it wasn't. Indeed, there were no formal processes until the coalition's questioning forced the government to airbrush their own website. The Assistant Minister for Manufacturing said that the fund would be up and running this financial year, so I ask the minister: When will the NRF invest the first dollar? When will the first dollar be spent in this financial year? Indeed, will the first dollar be spent before the next federal election?</para>
<para>This signature policy, they said, couldn't achieve. What couldn't it achieve? They haven't spent a dollar. It's a confused policy as part of a confused economic agenda of a confused government. The NRF Corporation CEO thinks we shouldn't pick winners. The corporation's chair thinks we should. And, depending on who you ask in the government, you get a different answer. There is not a dollar for our struggling manufacturers, but there is an additional $80 million in this bad budget to build the capacity of the NRF. When are we going to see funds put towards building the capacity of our struggling Australian manufacturers.</para>
<para>We have an industry minister on the outer—one who freelances policies and his own thought bubbles, signalling the rudderless nature of this government's industry policy. So I ask: will this government change the corporate tax rate? Will the government introduce economy-wide investment allowances? We know the industry minister has no say at the decision-making table, and our manufacturers are paying for it.</para>
<para>The government's latest $22.7 billion announcement in the budget, a series of measures labelled A Future Made in Australia, again makes no progress on a list of demands our manufacturers are making. They need better business conditions, not more government intervention. Productivity commissioners past and present have lined up to criticise this latest approach. So I ask the minister: what does this budget achieve for blue-collar manufacturers? What does the budget do for those industries who aren't hand-picked by this government?</para>
<para>There are more questions than answers around the strange dealings this government has had with PsiQuantum, a $1 billion deal. We've learnt that a legal services contract to get this deal over the line has risen from $280,000 to $3.3 million in just over a year, with nine amendments, three extensions and zero answers for taxpayers, who continue to see the largesse and waste of this tired government.</para>
<para>The coalition's Entrepreneurs Program was replaced by the Industry Growth Program, which has not progressed in a substantial way. So I ask the minister: are there grant opportunities open to applicants? When will the Industry Growth Program start delivering on the grants it advertises?</para>
<para>This government's failed and confused economic policies have delivered an insolvency crisis across the Australian economy. Manufacturing insolvencies are set to exceed last year's figures by the end of May. When will this government deliver a plan for all of our manufacturers, not just those with teams of lobbyists?</para>
<para>Our jetsetting industry minister needs to spend less time overseas and at glitzy black-tie functions and more time on the factory floors around Australia. Manufacturers large and small have been forthcoming with their concerns. Minister Husic actually needs to listen to the concerns and needs of our manufacturers and, much more importantly, he needs to respond.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been quite extraordinary to watch, over the last couple of weeks, the coalition's quite severe backflip and about-face on the importance of the mining sector in Australia and what governments need to do to support the mining sector. These are the parties that for many decades have been proudly claiming that they're the ones keeping mining strong. These are the parties that have been opposing tax increases on the gas sector, even though those tax increases were supported by the sector, and trying to give handouts in any possible way they could to their friends and supporters in that industry. Yet all of a sudden, when the budget is released, they are now opposing a once-in-a-generation set of measures to support the mining industry and to develop critical industries that Australia has long talked about but that the government now has a plan to deliver. So you'd forgive the Australian people for having a little bit of a sense of whiplash with this about-face from the coalition.</para>
<para>The question is: what is driving it? After trying so hard to deliver so much money to support their friends in the mining sector, why are they now opposed to this once-in-a-generation budget that delivers a significant investment into Australia's resources sector? Is it because suddenly they don't feel that the mining sector is important in Australia? Is it because they don't have faith in the industries that have long been talked about as being central to Australia's future—critical industries, batteries, mineral processing and green hydrogen? Have they suddenly decided that these industries don't have a hope in Australia and can't be supported, or do they think that this is a set of proposals which are old-style industry policy, won't work and won't have their intended impacts?</para>
<para>None of their objection to this package makes much sense. Australia has been talking about developing these industries for decades. We know that we have the underlying resources in order to be globally competitive in these sectors.</para>
<para>We know that Australia has a comparative advantage in these industries and all of the raw materials to create global export industries but we have waited for many decades and seen so little progress, and that is why this budget is so important. Because, for the first time, it backs these industries and creates a platform for them to reach global scale and international competitiveness. Are those opposite objecting on the basis that this money won't deliver that global competitiveness? Are they claiming that this money will lead to this industry becoming reliant on government money? Well, if that's their claim then they haven't read the substance of the proposal.</para>
<para>These measures are well crafted. They are designed to ensure that businesses only get the funds if they are producing and if they are delivering. That's why this mechanism of production tax incentives, particularly for critical minerals, will make such a difference and why it has been carefully crafted to safeguard the Treasury finances. It really begs the question of what is it that those opposite don't think Australia can achieve in these industries? What is their logic for opposing it, particularly when we've had so much support from across the industry? Paul Kopejtka from Alliance Nickel said, 'It's an absolute shot in the arm because this will boost investment, there is no doubt.' Rob Scott from Wesfarmers said, 'This is a smart targeted use of the tax system to solve big problems, leverage our competitive advantage and enhance Australia's prosperity.' And Adia Resources said, 'It will be significant benefit and will help make the Australian critical minerals sector more cost effective with our international peers.'</para>
<para>These are industries where Australia really has the capacity to achieve global excellence and achieve that global excellence in sectors where global demand is expanding. For a long time, Australia has mined minerals and delivered those minerals to our partners around Asia and around the world but we've never done much in the way of mineral processing, never done as much as we could have done on value adding to those minerals.</para>
<para>Finally, with the energy transformation that we have, with the abundance of solar resources that Australia has— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This budget was a missed opportunity for Australia's highly regarded world-renowned scientific and research sectors. I must express my regret that the Minister for Industry and Science has not bothered to grace us with his presence, which shows a degree of contempt for this important form of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. It is a contempt that has been replicated by many of his ministerial colleagues and is entirely at odds with the rhetoric that we saw from Mr Albanese, the current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the minister doesn't want to be here to defend the deal that he has done to boost funding for a range of American venture capital firms and the Canberra bureaucracy at the expense of funding for basic scientific research activity. We know that $466.67 million has been allocated to the American incorporated company PsiQuantum following a deal cloaked in secrecy and lacking in transparency, and we know that a further $27.7 million has been allocated for Canberra bureaucrats to oversee this controversial deal, deploying of course their considerable commercial expertise and investment experience. What can possibly go wrong?</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has chosen to bet a very large amount of money on one particular company, pursuing one particular technology path within the broad field of quantum, a field in which people who have been working for 20 or 30 years cannot say with certainty which of the many paths being explored is likely to achieve a successful outcome most rapidly. On any view, it will be at least several years and very possibly longer before the technology being developed by PsiQuantum is proven to work, if it can be proven to do so at all. We have seen the Albanese Labor government following a questionable process which has failed to meet normal standards of transparency and contestability. Those who were invited to participate felt that they were doing so in an exercise that had been reverse engineered, with terms of reference that made it look as if PsiQuantum was always going to be the winner.</para>
<para>It is troubling that so much funding has gone to an American incorporated and based quantum computing company, with a large ownership stake in the company being held by venture capitalists, including American venture capitalists, rather than any of the outstanding Australian based quantum computing companies and researchers. It would be a particular tragedy if this decision made by the Albanese Labor government to allocate, alongside the Queensland government, almost a billion dollars of taxpayers money to this particular American company ended up making it more difficult for other Australian based quantum computing companies to compete for and attract global investment because of a perception that their own government, having surveyed the field, does not believe in them and considers that their work is inferior to the work of this American based company.</para>
<para>At the same time that so much money has been sprayed in the direction of this American based company we are seeing money and resources for onshore scientific activity here in Australia being cut back. Labor has axed funding in the space sector by terminating the $1.2 billion National Space Mission for Earth Observation. At a time when, in the broad, the Public Service is increasing materially, CSIRO is having its staffing cut by 146 people and its funding cut by $14 million in 2024-25. That is at odds with much of the rhetoric we have heard from the minister about support for science. We have seen strong criticism of this government's priorities in relation to artificial intelligence. For example, Simon Bush of the Australian Information Industry Association said, in relation to the vital field of artificial intelligence, that Australia is now going backwards when other countries are going forwards.</para>
<para>My questions for the minister in relation to the PsiQuantum investment include: How much of the funding is a loan, how much is equity and how much is grants? What's the interest rate on the loan? How much of the funding will be sent overseas? Will the Australian government receive an ownership stake in the company? Will there be rights to the intellectual property that's developed? When will the deal be finalised? When will the computer be built? How much of the computer will be manufactured overseas? What will happen if the technology remains unproven? And was the minister aware of PsiQuantum's links to Chinese academics before approving the funding?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As an engineer, a scientist and a proud member of the Albanese Labor government, it is my pleasure to stand here, after a decade of waste, delay and inaction. It is outrageous to see what has happened in the past. We are the land of opportunity, and we have the opportunity to build on the opportunities of this place. But what happened under the previous government? We did not see that investment. And what can we do? We can plan our economy for the next generation.</para>
<para>So it is my deep pleasure to stand here in the Federation Chamber to recap the extraordinary, record levels of investment that the Albanese government is making into the resources sector to help achieve net zero emissions. As the mighty resources minister said, 'The pathway to net zero emissions runs through Australia'—and we Western Australians can say proudly that it will run through Western Australia. I am the daughter of a miner. My dad worked in the nickel mines. I am an engineer who started her career in steelcap boots on a mine site. And I am excited about the investment and the pathway that we will see happening in Australia.</para>
<para>We are providing $3.4 billion to Geoscience Australia over 35 years until 2060. This will comprehensively map Australia's natural resources. This is a long-term plan. It's a visionary program. It will map the most prospective areas of Australia's 7.7 million square kilometres. It will double our knowledge of Australia's geological resources and triple our understanding of Australia's critical minerals prosperity. This will help incentivise the private sector to explore and make discoveries and developments that will generate new jobs and opportunities under the Future Made in Australia. This program will fund precompetitive public geoscience and will map all of Australia's critical minerals, strategic minerals, alternative energies such as hydrogen, groundwater, geological storage and other important resources essential for our transition to net zero.</para>
<para>Precompetitive geoscience comes before private exploration and investment, not instead of it. In fact, it lays the groundwork for the private sector to explore and invest in private capital in Australia's mighty resource sector. The investment will send a strong signal to the international trading partners that the Albanese Labor government fully supports critical minerals exploration and development. It will place Australia in a strong position to maintain our competitive investment edge and our fair share of the resource market. This groundbreaking government investment in understanding where our critical minerals are in this vast continent will ensure that Australia and Australians minerals can be an indispensable part of the global drive to net zero emissions. It will lay the groundwork for minerals that we extract, refine and process and the goods that we can manufacture for decades to come. This program will be the foundation for Australian jobs, now and into the future.</para>
<para>The road to net zero runs through Australia's resource sector, and the Labor government's investment in Geoscience Australia will be a multi-decade on-ramp to things such as delivery of an inventory of national resource potential, consisting of multiple national maps including maps of hot spots for critical minerals and strategic minerals and other resources we need to support the transition. It will also assess all of Australia's groundwater systems, supporting our climate resilience and our agricultural output and water security, something that we can all agree that we need. Geoscience Australia will also investigate 12 regions onshore that are considered highly prospective yet haven't been explored for the resources we need to support the transition. They will also provide essential geoscience information to a wide audience including regional communities and farmers to support land and water management practices.</para>
<para>The benefits are clear. Deloitte Access Economics found that existing public precompetitive geoscience was estimated to support $76 billion worth of value to the Australian economy and also support 80,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This is a very exciting program. Go, team!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed—go, team! Can I start by commending my coalition colleagues the deputy leader and the Manager of Opposition Business on the important questions that they've put to the minister with regard to the scrutiny of the government's industry policy. I won't reiterate the points they've made, although I particularly highlight the very serious issues that the Manager of Opposition Business has raised about the PsiQuantum computing decision that has been made—a billion dollars, it seems, of taxpayer funds across the Commonwealth and Queensland government there, with some very serious questions to answer. It is a really concerning approach to the prudent management of taxpayer funds and also the way in which people—particularly Australian businesses—are given a fair opportunity to seek support from their own government. That doesn't seem to be an overly controversial principle, which I thought we'd all be seeking to honour. The answers from the minister will be keenly anticipated by myself and my colleagues because that one's very serious.</para>
<para>I just want to raise a couple of additional matters as questions to the minister on top of what my other colleagues have already raised. Obviously, the National Reconstruction Fund was legislated over a year ago, and we're extremely concerned about the progress of that. We didn't support it at the time, and, unfortunately, a lot of the concerns we had are proving to be very true. I start by asking the minister to inform this chamber: How much money has actually been provided so far from that fund to Australian manufacturers? How many jobs can they quantify have been created so far from that? It's been more than a year.</para>
<para>I also ask the minister about the National Reconstruction Fund. It's very curious that this fund was created a year ago and, a year later, what is essentially a whole new industry policy has been outlined—this 'made in Australia' policy. That is, very curiously, the sort of language you'd hear an opinion pollster recommend to a political campaign manager: 'You've got a problem out there with people thinking you're not doing enough for Australian industry. Why don't you create a policy called 'made in Australia'? We've run it past some focus groups, and they think that sounds good.' One wonders whether the terminology emanated from there. Particularly, I ask the minister to justify the $54 million in this fund. It seems to be for some kind of publicity advertising campaign—curiously, to be run over the next 12 months in the 2024-25 financial year. That's also an election year, I think. If I've got it right, the happy coincidence is that the government will be spending $54 million advertising the 'made in Australia' campaign during an election year.</para>
<para>One wonders, in terms of people watching the football or the nightly news, what call to action from the government is required of the average citizen in this country under the 'made in Australia' fund? It's all about tax break for billionaires and all the rest of it. You could easily write a letter to every billionaire, and it would cost about $1.20 a billionaire—or, as it's Australia Post, possibly more than $2 a billionaire. You could send them a letter. I think the people who are going to access this fund could be informed about it, if they haven't already read about it in the newspaper, for about $54, not $54 million. Just write them a letter and tell them about it, because the people to benefit under this are an exclusive group of billionaires, yet the government seem to be planning on running a big glitzy television advertising campaign to all Australians about 'made in Australia'. I'd love to hear the minister explain why a big television campaign is required for the elements of that program.</para>
<para>I'd also ask the minister to explain to all my friends in the space industry why this government doesn't back the space industry and why they've ripped billions of dollars out of space. I'm the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Space Industry, and all my friends in the space sector want to know why this government doesn't see any value in investing in space. I couldn't think of a more exciting opportunity for future industry than space. It is going to be central to everything. Even our most traditional industries, like mining and agriculture, have an exciting future through space technology. I do ask the minister: why is it that all that money is ripped out of space and what are they are spending it on? PsiQuantum—American companies without proper process for Aussie companies to get a chance to be considered for that money. At the same time, the space industry is missing out. So I finish by asking the minister to explain to the space industry: What have they done wrong? Why don't you back them and their future in this country?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just last week it was an absolute honour to welcome back the Minister for Industry and Science to the Illawarra for his third visit to our region in as few as 84 days. Back in March the minister joined me at the University of Wollongong's Innovation Campus for the launch of LIFT 2024—a transformative initiative to empower women in STEM and entrepreneurship. The program is run by two amazing women who are absolutely passionate about getting more women into STEM, Dr Tamantha Stutchbury and Professor Danielle Skropeta, and is powered by UOW's business incubator, iAccelerate , with a $1 million grant from our government's Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship, or WISE, program.</para>
<para>With the opportunities arising from the cleantech revolution, STEM jobs are predicted to grow by 14.2 per cent by 2026. That's almost twice as fast as non-STEM jobs. In this budget we are investing $38.2 million to support a thriving skilled and diverse STEM workforce, bringing total government funding for women in STEM programs to $90 million. This includes providing extra funding for the Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship grants, the Superstars of STEM program, the National Youth Science Forum, and Science in Australia Gender Equity, or SAGE. We are making sure that people from all corners of the community can make the most of opportunities from A Future Made in Australia.</para>
<para>On 10 May, the minister made the journey to the Illawarra again—this time to visit Hysata in Port Kembla, which was celebrating the southern hemisphere's largest ever series B capital raise of $172 million. The Albanese Labor government supported this capital raising, with a $15 million investment through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for the expansion of manufacturing at their Port Kembla facility, which aims to reach gigawatt-scale production of its electrolyser. After a decade of neglect from those opposite, the Albanese government is backing in Australian manufacturing. We are supporting Australian companies like Hysata to invest, grow and build sovereign capability to create a pipeline of well-paid jobs now and into the future.</para>
<para>Finally, on Friday last week, the minister returned again to our city of innovation and attended our mighty Port Kembla BlueScope steelworks to launch the green metals consultation paper. We are kickstarting Australia's green metal industry, and that will make us a world leader in green steel, aluminium, alumina and iron and lead to us making more things here in Australia and in the Illawarra. As the world continues to transition to net zero, demand for solar panels, electric cars, batteries and wind turbines will continue to grow along with an increasing need for them to be produced sustainably.</para>
<para>This budget has already backed green metals as an opportunity under the Future Made in Australia policy, including: an estimated $8 billion over the decade for renewable hydrogen production incentives; the $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund that will accelerate new and innovative technologies and facilities linked to priority sectors including green metals; and the Guarantee of Origin scheme, which will be expanded to green metals. This will certify the emissions intensity of green metals, helping us to establish stronger markets for green manufacturing.</para>
<para>Our renewable energy transformation will require five billion tons of steel between now and 2050. We hope that green steel will play a significant role in this mix. Understandably, demand for green steel is expected to rise by 25 per cent by 2040, while demand for aluminium is predicted to increase by 63 per cent by 2050. These green metals will need a lot of renewable energy and green hydrogen to come to fruition, which are areas that we hope to have a long-term competitive advantage in, thanks to the investment and action by this Labor government in the past two years after a decade of climate denial. The transformation to green metals can provide a boost of up to $122 billion to the economy by 2040 and a sizeable win in the global fight against climate change. It will help protect the current jobs of Australian metalworkers, like those on the production line at BlueScope, and will deliver more secure well-paid jobs into the future.</para>
<para>We are looking to develop a uniquely Australian industry policy with a Future Made in Australia, and I commend the minister for his tenacity in reviving the Australian manufacturing industry. Of course, we can't wait for him to visit the Illawarra again.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Budgets are about choices, and this government had this choice: would they genuinely support small business, or would they use this budget to support unions, corporate mates, and vested interest? Unfortunately, we have the answer. Prime Minister Albanese, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the minister for industry are supporting vested interests and corporations.</para>
<para>I stand here today representing the 60,000 small businesses in the seat Cook. These people right now in our economy feel like they are being ignored. Because right now this government is governing for the squeaky wheel, the vested interests, the corporations with their lobbyists and their megaphones and the unions. The small businesses of Cook are the people being let down by this government. They're too busy employing people and paying tax to tune into question time or line up for the grants, the corporate welfare, from the Albanese government.</para>
<para>We just heard from the member for Cunningham about a company in her electorate receiving a subsidy as part of a private sector capital raise. Why is this government obsessed with picking winners and subsidising select companies? Hopefully this one was Australian—that's all I can say—but we've got a government picking winners, picking large corporations. The 60,000 small businesses in Cook would love the opportunity to get that $15 million that was gifted to one company that we just heard about. I would love to know more, and I'm sure the 60,000 small businesses in my electorate would love to know more.</para>
<para>This Future Made in Australia was said to be the centrepiece of the budget. It was claimed to support Australian industry and manufacturing, but the reality of this is very different. Labor's Future Made in Australia says it only really cuts red tape for foreign investors or big businesses with dedicated procurement channels. It does absolutely nothing for the growing small and medium businesses and those in my electorate of Cook.</para>
<para>Now, the Treasurer was out there trying to claim that this is tax reform—only to be corrected by the chairwoman of the Productivity Commission yesterday, saying it's tax policy. She also expressed concerns as to how they would wean corporate Australia off. What is the ramp off? They're already worried.</para>
<para>Now, to be fair to the Minister for Industry and Science, he's arguing for tax reform—he's asking for lower taxes. But then he was corrected, only the next day, by the Treasurer: 'No, we're not for lower taxes.' Right now, with the dysfunction in this government and the arguments they're having amongst themselves between the Treasurer and the minister for industry, this is a government at sixes and sevens. They'd do very well to look back to the Hawke and Keating governments to see what tax reform really looks like. Instead, your Treasurer and your industry minister cannot agree on tax policy.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">A government member interjecting</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hope the member in his speech in a moment can come and clarify for me: do you agree with your Treasurer that we should not be cutting company tax, or do you agree with your industry minister that we should? I'd love to hear it from the next member.</para>
<para>Instead, what I think we'll hear is that the big players who've been given the resources to navigate these procurement channels are the ones who'll be prioritised. It'll be the small businesses who'll be ignored—continually ignored and ignored. It's not surprising that the Labor government is cosying up to these large corporates or that the small businesses in my electorate have never felt smaller, because, under this Labor government, corporates and government have never been larger. This government has been adding 50 bureaucrats a day, with over 30,000 bureaucrats added since the last election. So I ask the small businesses of Cook: Do they feel better? Do the small businesses of Cook feel better for these 30,000 bureaucrats?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Please direct your questions through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do they feel better supported because of these 30,000 bureaucrats, or do they think the government is just not listening? Do they think the government is governing for the squeaky wheels, the large corporates and the unions? I would love the industry minister to answer that. I'd love the Treasurer to answer: is he going to be for this tax cut that his industry minister is calling for?</para>
<para>The people of Australia and the people of Cook want answers. Instead, they have a confused budget from a government at sixes and sevens that can't get on the same page when it comes to what tax reform is, what tax policy is or what their next steps are.</para>
<para>Finally, we need a deregulation agenda. We need to allow growing small businesses to compete and flourish and to put them on an equal footing with these vested interests of the unions and large corporates and their lobbyists.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the proposed expenditure—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is sufficient. Before I call the next member, can I just ask that we wind back the interjections a little bit, please. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and I call the member for Tangney.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I stand before you with a vision—a vision of a stronger, more prosperous Australia. For too long, we have faced neglect in key sectors. But the Albanese government is here to change that. We are committed to revitalising Australian manufacturing, creating well-paid jobs and ensuring a future made right here in Australia.</para>
<para>The National Battery Strategy is a cornerstone of this vision. With global demands for batteries set to quadruple by 2030, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead the charge.</para>
<para>This strategy is not just about batteries. This initiative is projected to contribute $16.9 billion to our economy. It's about creating more than 60,000 high-skilled, high-paid jobs in our suburbs and regions by 2030. This strategy will also help us to transition to 82 per cent renewables, securing Australia's place in global battery supply chains.</para>
<para>We are focusing on high-value battery products where Australia has a competitive edge. From energy storage systems for renewable grids to batteries for our transport industry, we are harnessing our world-leading expertise.</para>
<para>We are committed to innovation, scaling up manufacturing in battery-pack assembly, sales and recycling. Our $523.2 million Battery Breakthrough Initiative will transform our battery industry, moving us up the value chain and solidifying our position as a renewable energy superpower. Independent analysis shows the potential of a diversified battery industry in Australia. We are targeting the highest value opportunity in battery technologies and chemistry, including lithium and vanadium, to ensure we remain at the forefront of this global shift. This project will create up to 400 highly skilled workers, create local jobs and provide our universities and research institutions with unparalleled resources, furthering our commitment to a Future Made in Australia.</para>
<para>I'm proud to have Murdoch University, whose main campus sits in my electorate of Tangney, as a key partner to the Future Battery Industries Cooperative Research Centre, FBICRC. With its established extractive metallurgy research and education centre at the Rockingham Campus led by Professor Aleks Nikoloski, Murdoch University is at the forefront of battery research and education. Murdoch University's commitment of $1.25 million to the FBICRC and its successful projects, worth over $4 million, highlights its significant role in advancing battery technology. Murdoch University's efforts in hydrometallurgy and its partnership with the FBICRC exemplify the kind of collaboration needed to supercharge our battery manufacturing capabilities. Their research will attract further investment and create teaching and learning opportunities in the Kwinana and Rockingham areas, fostering a new generation of skilled workers ready to drive our battery industry forward.</para>
<para>It does not stop there. Our green metal consultation paper aims to kickstart Australia's green metal industry, positioning us as a world leader in green metal: aluminium, alumina and iron. This initiative is expected to boost our economy by up to $122 billion by 2040 and significantly reduce global carbon emissions.</para>
<para>We are also investing in STEM diversity, ensuring all Australians can benefit from these opportunities. With $38.2 million dedicated to supporting a skilled and diverse STEM workforce, we are opening doors for underrepresented groups to pursue careers in these growing industries.</para>
<para>Finally, we are also investing in the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation with $479.9 million to build a new medical manufacturing facility. This will ensure a reliable supply of affordable medicines for Australians, particularly benefiting those with cancer, brain disorders and heart disease. Our vision is clear: a prosperous, productive Australia that leaves no-one behind. With the National Battery Strategy, we are not just preparing for the future; we are creating it. Together, let us power Australia forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The first question that I ask of the minister is: where is the minister? I was a little bit worried that the minister had been sent to Siberia after he dared question the Treasurer and call out the failures of a Future Made in Australia. But good news! The minister is not in Siberia. He's in Silicon Valley checking on his 'Made in Silicon Valley strategy'. He's going to visit PsiQuantum. I spoke in this chamber earlier this week about the dodgy process that led to the EOI of PsiQuantum, so I won't spend time today on that. It's good to see that the minister is in Silicon Valley, making sure that his constituents in Silicon Valley are looked after as part of their 'Made in America strategy'! That's $460 million of Australian taxpayers' money well spent!</para>
<para>The question today for the minister is: what is the government's plan to increase productivity? Productivity is something that this government doesn't talk about, but it is one of the key economic drivers to bring prices down and deal with the inflation challenge that we face.</para>
<para>When I worked in business, getting efficiencies, a unit per hour was crucial to our pricing. What businesses do is sit down and look at all their costs and put all the costs together—I've sat in these meetings. They then look at how many units they can produce per hour, and that gives them their final unit cost. They then allow for their finance and other margins. That's the price that they then pass on to the supermarket and to the others. You can bring the unit price down through productivity initiatives. You can bring prices down. You can pay your workers, you can pay Australians, more without driving inflation up.</para>
<para>This government does not have an agenda to drive productivity. The Treasurer and the minister for industry don't talk about productivity at all. But don't take my word for it. Just today, the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, said: 'The risk is that if productivity doesn't pick up and wages growth doesn't slow to reflect that then you'll get inflationary pressures, in the bank's view.' The RBA governor also said: 'We're interested in productivity as far as it goes for inflation. But productivity is going to be driven by government decisions.' This is the problem we have with this government. There's no agenda to drive productivity. Their Future Made in Australia policy is falling apart. The minister has already spoken out against it.</para>
<para>Another question that the minister needs to answer is: how much of the $15 billion for the National Reconstruction Fund has been spent since the October 2022 budget? The minister needs to answer that. I can answer it for him as well. It's a really easy answer—zero. Another question that the minister needs to answer is: how much money has been spent from the industry growth fund since it was announced? Well, luckily, I know the answer to that as well, but it would be great for the minister to confirm it. I understand that the answer to that is also zero. So, out of the two big funds that they announced with a lot of hoopla and spin, not a dollar has been spent to support manufacturers.</para>
<para>What manufacturers want is not a government that tries to pick winners and industries that are going to work; they actually just want the handbrake to be taken off—less regulation so they can do their work. As the minister said, and I agree with him on this, when they earn money after they've risked their capital and, in many cases, put their houses on the line, they want to be able to keep more of that money.</para>
<para>As the Productivity Commissioner, Danielle Wood, handpicked by the Treasurer, said: 'As a broad principle, reducing company tax will make us more internationally competitive.' What that means is more capital will naturally come into Australia, but it will come into all businesses, not those businesses deemed winners by this government—businesses like Twiggy Forrest's that are able to convince the government that they need that extra support. If it stacks up, the private capital will be there, and if it delivers a profit then there's going to be more capital coming into this country. That's why we shouldn't be picking winners. We should be creating the conditions for the Australian economy to grow and prosper. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The political amnesia of those opposite is extraordinary. Talk about picking winners. There was the NAIF, for example. They were the ones who established the NAIF. Then, of course, we had a former member for North Sydney, a former Treasurer, who sacrificed his political career on the altar of destroying the manufacturing industry and the car industry in Australia, with all the supply chains that went, including for people involved in manufacturing in Kilcoy in my electorate. So don't give us lectures, when you handed out huge amounts of money, including hundreds of million of dollars to organisations who had no experience in conservation, the environment or the Great Barrier Reef et cetera. Don't give us lectures about that. Seriously!</para>
<para>We're supporting Australian companies to make sure we invest and grow those companies and build their sovereign capability. We believe in a future made in Australia. Don't believe those opposite. They had nine years to do anything about it. All they did was dole out sports rorts and other types of things like that. We need to create jobs in manufacturing, in clean energy, for a prosperous future in that area, so we're supporting manufacturers in this area. The current global energy transition and industrial transformation are there for all to see, except those opposite don't want to look. They are delivering high-skilled, high-wages secure jobs.</para>
<para>We launched our first national battery strategy to support a Future Made in Australia and to make more from what we mine here in Australia. Global demand for batteries is said to quadruple by 2030 as the world transitions to net zero. A key election commitment, the National Battery Strategy, sets Australian industry up for success, and those opposite don't want to know about it. It will harness our world-leading expertise and build a battery manufacturing industry here in Australia, creating good, secure, well-paid jobs. We expect this will create more than 60,000 new high-skilled, high-paid jobs in the suburbs and regions by 2030.</para>
<para>The objectives of the strategy are to create greater wealth for Australians by manufacturing batteries onshore, help transition to 82 per cent renewables and secure our place in the global battery supply chain. We will focus on high-value factory products, manufacturing energy storage systems for renewable grids, providing battery-active materials et cetera. The strategy outlines how we will drive innovation and scale up manufacturing in battery pack assembly, cells and recycling.</para>
<para>In May this year, I visited the Queensland University of Technology advanced battery facility pilot plant and the Queensland Energy Storage Technology Hub at Banyo in Brisbane when Minister Husic recently launched the battery strategy. There are some existing industry-linked energy storage research projects and a terrific demonstration of our ability to manufacture batteries and innovate in South-East Queensland. Minister, I'm keen to learn about how we can have an ABIC, a battery centre in my electorate in Swanbank where QUT wants to go. I would much rather have a battery centre than a nuclear power plant, as the Liberals will propose. My question is: how can entities like QUT participate in the National Battery Strategy and what can the government to do the support good projects like this in my electorate? Those opposite, I would prophesise, if they came to power—and God help the country if they ever do—would have a road-to-Damascus conversion experience to support PsiQuantum. They support the idea of quantum computing, so I don't know what those Queensland LNP members have against Brisbane and South-East Queensland.</para>
<para>PsiQuantum is a world-leading quantum computing company. It's based in Silicon Valley and has a $3.2 billion US value. Two of the four founders are alumni of University of Queensland, where I went to university—but I studied law, not quantum computing. What do those opposite have against Queensland? PsiQuantum will create 400 high-skill local jobs, help investment in our local companies and help open up new digital and advanced technical supply chain opportunities. They will provide support here for internships, opportunities to fund PHC positions for our nation's scientists. A dedicated climate research centre will be established in Brisbane as part of this investment to identify quantum applications in the climate sector. Springfield City Group and other Springfield based businesses in my electorate are keen to establish a quantum education centre within Springfield's the Knowledge precinct with the support of Albanese Labor government. Minister, what can we do to get that centre here in my electorate and how can we support a Queensland based PSI Quantum education centre in Springfield in my electorate?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was pleased to see that the centrepiece of the budget that the government delivered last month was a move to invest in Australia's transformation to a net zero economy. The Future Made in Australia program is a big-picture policy that will deploy $22.7 billion in direct investment, production tax incentives and loans to drive development of future industries like green hydrogen, green metals, critical minerals and renewables. But this is just a first step in what needs to be a much larger investment to drive our transition to clean energy and to become a clean and renewable energy superpower.</para>
<para>The global energy transition is already well under way. In Australia, already 40 per cent of our energy generation is from renewable resources. But we have reached an inflection point, a watershed moment, where our country's future will be determined by the decisions we are making right now. Australia must choose whether to step boldly into the global race to make the most of our abundant renewable assets and become a leading renewable energy exporter or face being left behind. I believe it is beyond time for Australia to move away from the 'dig it and ship it' mentality and futureproof our economy and prosperity by building our value-adding and manufacturing capacity right here in Australia. So I support the Future Made in Australia program. It's an important investment in the diversification of our economy, future jobs and future prosperity. But the government's announced plan represents only the first step.</para>
<para>However, at the same time the Future Made in Australia strategy was announced with much fanfare, the government also announced its Future Gas Strategy. This strategy paves the way for major new and massively expanded gas projects to be approved, with lifespans beyond 2050, including some of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive and most polluting mines in the world. This is a confounding conflict the government has created—the most monumental example of a bet each way—and it is dangerous. The government is trying to convince Australians it is serious about climate change while at the same time giving the green light to fossil fuel companies to spend up big on infrastructure that will guarantee our reliance on gas for decades to come. Australia and the world are at a crossroads, and what we need is bold and visionary leadership, not equivocation. This equivocation by the government will not help Australia to become a renewable energy superpower. Rather, it will hold us back as it creates confusion, conflicting signals and uncertainty. What investors in our future renewable economy need is certainty and strong government leadership.</para>
<para>The announcement of the government's Future Gas Strategy has devastated climate scientists. What does this mean for our future? Esteemed climate scientist Joelle Gergis gave a briefing in Parliament House yesterday about her just-released <inline font-style="italic">Quarterly Essay</inline> 'Highway to hell'. In that briefing session, Joelle explained:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… there is a 90% chance that the continuation of current climate policies will result in 2.3C to 4.5C of global warming by the end of century, with a best estimate of 3.5C.</para></quote>
<para>How is that consistent with a livable future? Quite clearly, if we veer away from our current path towards one that is expanding gas as the Future Gas Strategy does for us, we are locking ourselves into a devastating future. I do acknowledge that there is a small role for gas to play in firming and for industry as we transition to the clean energy generation. But to massively expand and bake in decades of gas production under the guise of acting on climate change, in my view, is a most monumental exercise in greenwashing and an egregious misrepresentation to the people of Australia.</para>
<para>So my questions to the minister are these. If the government truly believes in acting on climate change and driving Australia's journey to becoming a renewable energy superpower, why is it equivocating and not showing clear and decisive leadership on this? Why is it pursuing two energy strategies that are completely incompatible? When it comes to gas, isn't the government's plan to massively expand Australia's gas production and export irreconcilable with a safe climate, baking in our country's use of gas and economic reliance on gas exports for decades? Will the government be building on the Future Made in Australia plan as announced in the May budget, which can only be regarded as a first step at best for what is required for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower? If our goal is to truly become a renewable energy superpower, isn't encouraging new and expanded gas infrastructure investment a dead end? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 28 May, the question is that the proposed expenditure for the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio be agreed to.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>142</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the consideration in detail stage of these appropriation bills. I note that, just last week, the Registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal confirmed in evidence to a Senate committee that tribunal members take very seriously their obligation to make decisions under the law. We know that tribunal members are required by law to implement and give effect to direction 99. The government has been trying to blame the tribunal for the disastrous results of this direction, claiming that the minister has been misinterpreted. That might be remotely plausible if we were talking about a single case, but we know that many different members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal implementing direction 99 have, in case after case, permitted violent offenders and serious sexual offenders to remain in Australia.</para>
<para>The Attorney-General, we know, and his department, for some mysterious reason, did not regard this systemic problem as a significant legal issue, even though the Attorney administers the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, oversees our legal system and has responsibility for community safety. In fact, as far as we can tell—and perhaps the Attorney will enlighten us all—it appears he never even considered the interpretation of direction 99 as possibly being a significant legal issue until that was pointed out by this side of the House. Why would that be? Last week, the tribunal confirmed that, if a minister disagrees with a ruling of the tribunal, there are two pathways open to the minister: to appeal to the courts on a point of law or to use ministerial powers to quash the tribunal decision.</para>
<para>In evidence to the Senate on Friday, the registrar of the tribunal made clear that, to the best of his understanding, the minister has the power to quash every single decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where a person is permitted to remain in Australia based on direction 99. Despite the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs seeking to blame the tribunal and imply that tribunal members misapplied direction 99, it seems that he completely failed to take any action in relation to decision after decision which, on his version of events, misapplied his direction. He did not use the powers that the registrar says he has to quash those tribunal decisions. He did not systematically launch appeals in relation to those directions.</para>
<para>Let me turn now to the question of the new tribunal that the Attorney is imposing on the Australian people. We know from the budget papers that the government intends to spend $1 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money to change from the AAT to the ART. This is an extraordinary level of expenditure. In judging whether this is appropriate, we should ask: what did Australians have before these bills and what will they have afterwards? Before these bills, Australians had an administrative tribunal that reviewed government decisions. After these bills, Australians have an administrative tribunal that reviews government decisions. They're also a billion dollars down in terms of money remaining available to taxpayers because this government is spending $1 billion. Why is this costly rebranding exercise being indulged? Where does this money come from? Some of it comes from the National Disability Insurance Agency, Veterans' Affairs or social services—from agencies dealing with vulnerable Australians. Why has the government decided that it's better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new tribunal rather than, for example, deploy this money to support women fleeing family and domestic violence?</para>
<para>One of the other features of this government's unconstrained spending spree is $168 million over the forward estimates on an anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reform. What's the government now proposing to expand this framework to cover real estate agents, accountants, law firms, conveyancers and the like? Will these entities, I ask the minister—the Attorney—now need to prepare detailed AML/CTF programs, potentially at the cost of many thousands of dollars and many hours of lost time? Will these many businesses that are now going to be caught in this regulatory web need to deal with competing regulation, in that, on the one hand, they will be required to destroy personal information under the Privacy Act but, on the other hand, they will be required to retain personal information under the AML/CTF Act? I ask the Attorney for clarification on that matter.</para>
<para>I further ask: How many new businesses around Australia will be dragged into his expansive new regulatory net? How many real estate agencies are there in Australia that will now be dragged into this regulatory net? How many accountancy practices and how many law firms will be within the remit of these new laws?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the consideration in detail of the diverse portfolio that the Attorney-General manages. Of particular interest to me is our government's reform of Australia's system of administrative review. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Immigration Assessment Authority are being replaced with a new federal administrative review body, the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART. This is not, as the member for Bradfield would have us think, a name change. It goes way beyond that. It's about fixing a system that those opposite broke and totally undermined. The creation of the ART will restore trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review.</para>
<para>Tens of thousands of people rely on the AAT every year to independently review government decisions such as whether they qualify for an age pension, whether they should be compensated for an injury they suffered while serving their nation in the military or whether they should receive NDIS funding for essential supports. The AAT's public standing was irreversibly damaged as a result of the former government's appointment of as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates, without any merit based assessment process.</para>
<para>The former government fatally compromised the AAT, undermined its independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making. The Albanese government has inherited an AAT that was not on a sustainable financial footing and that was beset by delays and an extraordinarily large backlog of applications. To its shame, the opposition voted against Labor's reforms, demonstrating its ongoing commitment to using the AAT as a job agency for Liberal mates at the expense of the Australian public.</para>
<para>A central feature of the new ART is a transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of non-judicial members. Existing non-judicial members of the AAT, many of whom continue to embody the best traditions of that once-celebrated institution, were invited to apply for positions on the new body in accordance with the new process. The government has introduced legislation to give effect to its reform. That came in early in December and was passed, and I was privileged to be Chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee inquiry into the ART bills. We recommended those bills be passed. Last week, they were finally passed in the parliament and received assent on Monday of this week. This is going to enable the ART to commence operation as soon as possible.</para>
<para>AAT resources, including staff, will transfer to the ART on establishment. The priorities of the AAT, for 2024-25 and until such time as it no longer exists, are to manage its large and diverse case load, including through ensuring the continued delivery of high-quality services to its users. It will prepare for the transition to the ART, including the ongoing development of the case management system. It will support members and staff during this transition period.</para>
<para>Our legislation establishes an ART that is fair and just and resolves applications in a timely manner and with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision. It will be an ART that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties. It will improve transparency and the quality of government decision-making and, most importantly, will promote public trust and confidence in itself.</para>
<para>The funding in the budget will ensure the new tribunal is supported by a sustainable and demand driven funding model, producing timely decision-making. The funding package also includes $9.6 million to provide improved access to merits review for regional, rural and remote communities as well as a user experience and accessibility team and a pilot First Nations liaison officer program. This funding builds on the Albanese government's investment of $128 million in previous budgets to tackle the AAT's substantial backlog, develop a fit-for-purpose case management system and re-establish the Administrative Review Council. My question to the Attorney is: how soon can the ART commence operations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My questions are about what the Attorney has done about the failure of his portfolio agency the Australian Human Rights Commission to appropriately deal with the rise of antisemitism since 7 October. The commission is the institution charged with protecting Australians from racism, but for eight months, since 7 October, the commission has failed to call out antisemitism despite a 738 per cent increase across Australia.</para>
<para>At Senate estimates last week, when asked if she'd specifically referenced antisemitism in relation to the Opera House protests, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission could only say, 'All of our material refers to the impact on all of the community.' In the past, the commission's rightly made specific statements about negative experiences of Australian Muslims and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, but not Jews. Although the president's rightly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, she failed to condemn Hamas when repeatedly asked to do so. The commission has repeatedly failed to stand up for Jewish Australians and specifically and singularly call out the antisemitism which has been rife since 7 October.</para>
<para>Has the Attorney spoken to the president or to any commission staff about why the commission has repeatedly failed to call out the rising antisemitism in Australia since 7 October? If so, when did he first speak to the commission? What undertakings, if any, did the commission give about what the commission would do? If he hasn't raised these issues with the commission, why has he not done so?</para>
<para>The phrase 'from the river to the sea' calls for the violent destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. The Prime Minister agrees that it's an extremely violent statement which has no place on our streets. A bipartisan motion in the Senate condemned the use of the phrase. So what does the Attorney-General say to his new Race Discrimination Commissioner, who, at Senate estimates last week, failed to condemn the phrase 'from the river to the sea' and instead said that he'd have to look at the context?</para>
<para>There is systemic racism against Jews at the commission, as evidenced by the statements of their staff and actions of their contractors. This includes the head of Hue Consulting, who was engaged to prepare antiracism material but was involved in the doxxing of 600 Jewish creatives and publicly urged her followers to 'let these effing Zionists know no effing peace'. It was the commission's lawyer who publicly stated that Jewish people as a group are not entitled to cultural safety and suggested the terrorist attacks of 7 October could make sense. Referring to Jewish people, another staff member wrote: 'What are they without Zionism? If we take that away—their violence, their toxicity, their racism—what's left of them as a people?' Then there was the call by commission staff, in relation to the terrorist attacks, to acknowledge Israel's occupation of Palestine as the source of the violence and embed an acknowledgement of Israel's apartheid, occupation and genocide in all communications regarding this matter from the commission.</para>
<para>Has the Attorney expressed concern to the commission about the apparent systemic racism against Jewish people among their staff and contractors? Has he spoken to the commission about their employment and contracting policies to ensure those engaged by the commission are not biased against Jewish Australians? Has the Attorney asked the commission to undertake an audit of its staff and contractors to establish whether any other staff or contractors have engaged in acts of racism against Jewish Australians?</para>
<para>The government's policy is to have the commission undertake a two-year inquiry into racism on campus, which includes racism against First Nations people, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Does the Attorney believe the level of campus antisemitism is not significant enough to have its own standalone inquiry?</para>
<para>Given the problems of campus antisemitism before October 7 identified by the Australian Jewish students' survey, including that 64 per cent of Australian Jewish university students experienced antisemitism on campus and 19 per cent stayed away because of antisemitism, and given the massive increase in antisemitism on campus has included Jewish students being spat on and taunted with swastikas, the office of Jewish staff members being urinated on, academics saying Jews don't deserve cultural safety, academics denying the rapes of October 7, the failure of university leaders—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The failure of university leaders to deal properly with antisemitism includes dealing with encampments, vice-chancellors implying that hate-fuelled protests are just the price Jewish students have to pay for free speech and a collective statement from 39 university chancellors which was so weak it didn't even mention the words 'Jew' or 'antisemitism'.</para>
<para>Given all of this—given failure of the commission president to call out antisemitism and condemn Hamas, given the Race Discrimination Commissioner could not condemn 'from the river to the sea', given the systemic racism of its staff and contractors—does the Attorney believe the commission is really the appropriate body to undertake an inquiry into antisemitism on campus? Or does he agree with the opposition, the non-Green crossbenchers and almost every Jewish organisation in the country that only a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus can deal with this matter properly?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My focus during this consideration in detail is on legal aid, which we all know is a critically important resource for vulnerable Australians. I knew this fact from my very first day, last century, as an article clerk. I knew it while working as a solicitor, while working as an MP and working for the then shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, and during my two years serving on the joint select committee looking into Australia's family law system.</para>
<para>During that time I came to even better appreciate how essential legal assistance is when it comes to ensuring Australians have access to justice and equality before the law. My wife, Lea, back when she was a solicitor this century also volunteered at Queensland's amazing Women's Legal Service. The work that comes out of that small office in Annerley is all about helping a marginalised clientele—and a big shout-out to the dedicated staff and volunteers there. You provide an essential service to all of Queensland.</para>
<para>The legal assistance sector is supported by the National Legal Assistance Partnership between the Commonwealth and all states and territories. It provides funding for legal aid, commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. The current agreement expires at the end of June in 2025. The recent independent review, conducted by Dr Warren Mundy, considered how legal assistance in the future could provide better access to justice for all who need it. The review was asked to evaluate legal need, legal assistance funding, the effectiveness and challenges of service delivery, and data collection outcomes and reporting.</para>
<para>The resulting report has 39 recommendations to resolve a range of issues, with four main themes. Firstly, it recommended increased funding. Marginalised people have been further disadvantaged by little investment in the sector over the past decade. Dr Mundy recommended changes to funding calculations and distribution, changes to indexation, and highlighted the opportunity to target funding to priority cohorts.</para>
<para>Secondly, the sector needs to be strengthened by developing a sustainable workforce. Pay disparities need to be addressed to help with staff attraction and retention. Service providers are also facing growing pressures on their fixed costs, so the report recommends options to invest in infrastructure, such as technology, data and evidence. I saw this recently when I met with some CLCs in Alice Springs and Darwin.</para>
<para>Thirdly, a group of the recommendations concerns better justice outcomes for First Nations people. The review found that the National Legal Assistance Partnership has not progressed on the priority reforms and socio-economic outcomes of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The recommendations included funding arrangements for Aboriginal community controlled organisations to enhance self-determination and service coordination effectiveness and coverage.</para>
<para>Fourthly, Dr Mundy recommended improved administration of funding as well as an outcomes framework, improved performance indicators and consistent data collection. These measures will assist with monitoring progress towards priorities and will inform future policy decisions.</para>
<para>The report is under consideration by the Commonwealth states and territories. Currently, there are about 200 CLCs across Australia. The hardworking staff of these centres help hundreds of thousands of Australians who otherwise would not have access to legal assistance. As we all know, the common areas of assistance are family law, civil law and criminal law matters. The work is challenging but rewarding. One aspect that makes CLCs special is that there are many specialist services catering to specific cohorts or issues. These include women, tenancy and housing, culturally and linguistically diverse people and refugees and migrants. It's a sad reflection of our national gendered violence crisis that women's legal services are experiencing unprecedented demand, and the chairperson of CLCs Australia also said that the cost-of-living crisis has created further demand, especially for assistance with credit, debt, consumer concerns and tenancy services.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government recognises both the crucial role played by legal assistance centres and the uptick in demand for services. This year's budget included over $44 million as an immediate funding boost to the sector. Seventeen million dollars of the funding is a one-off indexation boost to legal aid commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. The remaining money, approximately $27 million, is being directed to stabilising the workforce and reducing the pay disparities which are affecting retention problems.</para>
<para>I conclude by asking the Attorney-General to provide an update on the consideration of the National Legal Assistance Partnership report and on plans for additional funding for this crucial service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In questioning at Senate estimates last week, it was revealed that the Attorney-General has removed the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia from a panel that recommends who should be appointed as a judge to the court that he oversees. The Chief Justice no longer has a say in the hiring of judges who work for him. In fact, as a result of decisions made by the Attorney, the court isn't represented on the selection panel at all. In fact, when deciding earlier this year to put on a panel to select specialist family law judges, the Attorney-General's hand-picked panel comprised a long-term public servant, a judge from a court that doesn't deal with family law and a lawyer in the field with no judicial experience. Why did the Attorney do this?</para>
<para>When the Chief Justice administers his role or performs the functions of his role, he obviously has the ability to assess the competence of often advocates that appear before him. Yet, Mr Attorney-General, you're removing his ability to select judges with the benefit of seeing their skills as advocates who would invariably and often be chosen as potential candidates to sit on the bench. This Attorney is removing the Chief Justice's ability to have a say on who would be meritorious, who would be good candidates, to ultimately take that prized position of public life of serving their community on the bench.</para>
<para>This is a classic missed opportunity. In fact, the Attorney is spending $1,000 million dollars, a billion dollars, in reforming the AAT. Yet, on something that is so important—the appointment of judges—he is effectively sidelining the Chief Justice, and that is inexplicable. I would be very keen to hear why he has done that.</para>
<para>Why did he ask people who aren't experts in the field to rate the merit of candidates in extremely specialised and important roles? A similar approach was revealed in division 2 of the court. But, wait, there's more. It was also revealed that the Attorney-General has racked up over 2,000 days of delays in appointing judges to the bench of the division 2 court. In one case, he left a position vacant for more than 14 months. You would need to appoint an extra judge to work in that court and have them work for more than five years before you would catch up the time that was lost. That is before you even start to include the additional 10 judges that were promised but have not been delivered by this government. So far as we can tell from MYEFO, these 10 judges were all meant to start on 1 January this year, but it seems as if they won't be appointed until the end of June. Perhaps the Attorney-General could enlighten us in that regard? It doesn't matter if you budget for additional judges, if you don't appoint them.</para>
<para>The effect of these delays by the Attorney-General is that for many Australian families who are at their most vulnerable the pain and sadness of separation and Family Court proceedings are drawn out and made more costly, and it is a price paid in misery. I hope it doesn't pan out that way; I hope that we're wrong, because it is families who are paying the cost because they cannot get their case in front of a judge. Each of us in this place would know a family or families who have proceedings in the Family Court. It is just not fair to those families, to those children, who are waiting to get their matters resolved because justice delayed is justice denied.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>147</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Following shocking reports of an alleged rape in this building just couple of years ago now, our parliament as a workplace came under intense scrutiny, resulting in the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins leading an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The report of the review <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">et the standard</inline> was published in 2021 and laid bare a workplace culture influenced by power imbalances, gender inequality and exclusion, and a lack of accountability. The report made 28 recommendations to enact positive change and improve parliamentary behaviours and standards—all of which were agreed to by this parliament.</para>
<para>Oversight of the implementation of these recommendations is done by the cross-party Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, of which I am a member along with my fabulous Labor colleagues Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher, Minister for Finance and Women, and Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, Special Minister of State and Minister for Trade and Tourism. We've made great progress. Every recommendation of the report has now been either fully implemented or partly implemented, or it's in progress. The only exception is the recommendation for independent external review, which will be conducted next year as agreed by the PLT.</para>
<para>I draw the minister's attention today to the recommendation which called for the establishment of a centralised independent office to provide human resource support to parliamentarians and their staff that is accountable to this parliament. I note that the government legislation to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, or PWSS as it's now known, passed in the parliament last year. This advanced the Albanese Labor government's commitment to implementing all the recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard</inline> report.</para>
<para>The PWSS has since become an integral part of changing the culture and uplifting the standards of parliamentary workplaces through its role in providing independent and confidential trauma-informed complaint resolution and counselling services and support for referrals to specialised services and, where necessary, the police. It'll work closely with the soon to be established Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to ensure that all incidents of concern in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces can be adequately investigated and, if necessary, the appropriate sanctions applied.</para>
<para>The PWSS has also recently expanded its services to provide workplace health and safety and employment life cycle support to offices, such as assistance with job design, recruitment, performance management, and education and training through the PWSS Academy. The academy is a great initiative and one that my staff have utilised as part of their professional development journey. The PWSS has become an important part of the fabric of this workplace and is integral to improving our standards and culture. I know that the PWSS is making a difference to people here, because I hear it every day from colleagues and staff on all sides.</para>
<para>I have also taken advantage of the HR resources provided by PWSS, which has strengthened my own office's processes, providing efficiencies and enabling my team to better support my Newcastle constituents. And I know I am not alone. Indeed, in the last 12 months of the PWSS's operations it has reported a 239 per cent increase in the number of cases it is managing. I am so pleased to hear this, because it means that that early intervention and early detection of conflict and complaints is being managed where it should be, at the lowest level possible, before matters escalate.</para>
<para>That's why I'm so pleased that this government has included in this year's budget $51.7 million in funding over four years from 2023-24 and $12.4 million per year ongoing to support the continued work of the PWSS. Minister, can you outline how this funding will continue the good work of the PWSS in improving parliamentary standards for all who work in Commonwealth parliamentary offices?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since Labor handed down their third budget, numerous economists have been exclaiming their thoughts on what we know is a true Labor budget. And there's no doubt about it: the people of Australia are doing it really tough, not just in Queensland but in all the states and territories around Australia. It's a known fact that Australians are poorer under Labor and that Aussies are paying the price for Labor's bad decisions and wrong priorities.</para>
<para>I was contacted by Vimal, a local business owner from Bracken Ridge in my electorate who runs a restaurant there. He was saying he's had to close his business as he can't afford to run it anymore, with inflation and costs going up and up and up. And I'm saddened to hear that this is the case for more and more businesses. This of course hurts consumers. It hurts the people who vote for us. The price of food is up by 11 per cent. The cost of housing is up by 14 per cent. There's record homelessness. Gas prices are up by 25 per cent and electricity prices by 20 per cent. And the minister will know that insurance premiums are up by 26 per cent.</para>
<para>There's not a lot in this budget for Australians. It does little to tame inflation and little to ease the cost of living. It does nothing to lower rent, which has probably doubled for most renters throughout Australia, and it does nothing to lower mortgages. The lousy $300 off electricity bills that they offered is a drop in the ocean. It's good for one year. What happens in years 2, 3, 4 and 5? The bill keeps going up. KPMG economist Brendan Rynne said, 'Bringing down inflation through the energy payment and rent assistance is smoke and mirrors.' Stephen Halmarick said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The risk is now more real that the first interest rate cut could be delayed and that the neutral cash rate is higher than we currently estimate due to the expansionary fiscal setting and the high level of investment in the economy.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on. There's a whole list of quotes from economists saying that this budget does little.</para>
<para>I've got some questions for the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. Professor of Economics Steven Hamilton said that this is 'the most irresponsible budget in recent memory'. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… in the current and coming financial years, when the inflation crisis is at its most acute, real growth in spending is double that benchmark at 4.5 per cent and 3.6 per cent, respectively.</para></quote>
<para>So why has the government put its foot on the funding accelerator when the Reserve Bank is hitting the brakes? How much more will Australian families pay the government in bracket creep due to Labor's homegrown inflation? Bracket creep is a big issue. How will that impact people? How is it economically responsible, Minister, to increase spending by twice the rate of economic growth?</para>
<para>I've also got questions in relation to financial advice. Financial advisers are doing it tough and paying more under this government at a time when people in our electorates right around Australia need advice. That's what they need. The budget includes several measures, on pages 71, 179, 181 and 184 of Budget Paper No. 2, that will require additional ASIC levies. My question to the minister is: how much of these additional ASIC levies will be paid for by financial advisers? On page 180 of Budget Paper No. 1, GST receipts in 2023-24 were upgraded from the MYEFO estimate of $84,079 million to $85,758 million. Does this upgrade include increased receipts due to the ATO's revised interpretation on eligibility for trustees to claim the reduced input tax credit for GST on fees paid for financial advice? I have a couple more questions to the minister on financial advice. We've estimated that GST receipts have increased by $250 million because of the ATO's new interpretation. Does that account with the minister's estimate? Finally, does this situation, Minister, accord with the government's stated aim of reducing the cost of financial advice and increasing accessibility for Australians? They're the minister's own words. I'd love some answers in relation to that.</para>
<para>We're all here to represent Australians in our electorates. We want to do the best job we can. But right now, in 2024, people are doing it really tough. This has all happened in the last two years, since the Albanese government were elected. There's no doubt that during the coalition years people had more money in their pocket. They were better off. Their rents weren't as high. Their mortgages weren't as high. Certainly their insurance wasn't as high. Right now, they're doing it tough. We'd love answers from the minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The shadow Assistant Treasurer just said that Australians are doing it tough, and he's right. He pointed out that prices have increased, that rents have increased and that many families are struggling to make ends meet. He's right about all of those things. What he's not right about is the cause of that pressure on Australian family budgets. The cause of that pressure is that the previous government left inflation running at record high levels. Inflation under this government has been cut in half. The shadow minister spent a lot of time talking about the price of energy and rents and about other family costs. What he didn't tell you is the trajectory of those prices since his government left office and our government began. Let's take them one by one.</para>
<para>Energy costs—when his government left office, they were forecasting electricity costs to increase by 20 per cent in the following year, a 20 per cent annual increase. That's not something they were upfront about in the election period, but that was information that they provided to then energy minister, now shadow Treasurer. Subsequently, the runs are on the board. The latest inflation numbers that were released the week before last showed that electricity prices in the last quarter fell by 1.5 per cent. So we've reduced electricity prices, which were running at 20 per cent before the last election when the Liberals had stewardship, by 1.5 per cent in the most recent quarterly numbers. Similarly, gas prices in Australia—the gas component of the CPI—have fallen by 1.7 per cent in the latest quarterly numbers.</para>
<para>I am sure that the empathy that the shadow Assistant Treasurer speaks of for Australian families doing it tough is well meant and sincere. Unfortunately, the reason that prices were going up so much for those Australian families is that the Liberals left a legacy of high inflation across the board, and the hope that those families have is that the Labor government continues the work that it has done to reduce prices across the board, to halve inflation and to reduce pressure on interest rates.</para>
<para>The truth is that, if we had left inflation running at the level that the Liberals left it at, which was 2.1 per cent quarterly growth in the last quarter printed before they left office, the average Australian family would be paying $200 more a week for their expenses. If we'd left inflation at that level, prices today would be 17 per cent higher now than they were at the time of the election. So it's true that Australian families are doing it tough and that prices have risen, but they have risen by a lot less than they would have if we had let the rate of inflation that the Liberals were running stay intact.</para>
<para>But that is not what we have done. What we've done is work to reduce the level of inflation in Australia through prudent budget measures that have helped take the pressure off prices, provide fiscal surpluses and reduce the cumulative underlying cash balance by $214 billion. This is one of the largest fiscal turnarounds in Australian history. Indeed, it's one of the largest fiscal turnarounds in world history. We've reduced the cumulative deficits by around two-thirds over the six years to 2028. We've found $105 billion in responsible savings and budget improvements, and doing so has avoided around $80 billion in interest payments over the medium term. What we've delivered is the first budget surplus—in fact, back-to-back surpluses, not back to black, which was their idea—in 15 years.</para>
<para>This is the hope that Australian families have—that, through the prudent and responsible fiscal management that they have seen in the last two budgets, we can bring down inflation from the horrific levels left by the Liberal government. That provides relief to families on their daily pressures and ultimately provides relief as it gives more room to the RBA to bring down interest rates. That's the hope for Australian families, and that's what Labor is delivering.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll start on a genuinely meant positive note: I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his opening conversation on APRA's proposed changes to capital and liquidity requirements for the customer owned banks. In a cost-of-living crisis, it is clear that, if there is an increase in those requirements and that results, as is unfortunately expected, in a reduction of competition in the banking sector, those additional costs—the higher costs of capital—will be passed on to consumers. For customer owned bank customers, we are talking about mums and dads who are living through some very difficult times. These costs will be passed on. That is clear. So I thank the Assistant Treasurer for his conversation. I look forward to further conversation. My question is: will he seriously consider the concerns raised and commit to increasing competition in the banking sector, which was, I point out, a very strong finding of the Standing Committee on Economics report into economic dynamism, which the member for Parramatta was a part of?</para>
<para>To slightly change speed, Labor's third budget ensures that inflation will remain higher for longer, and that is the view of most economists, of the bond markets and of the Australian people, who have overwhelmingly expressed how underwhelming this budget has been. In the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline>, Phil Coorey wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The poll showed just 11 per cent—</para></quote>
<para>of respondents—</para>
<quote><para class="block">thought the budget decreased the prospect of another rate rise while 39 per cent … feared it could push up rates.</para></quote>
<para>Does the minister accept that the budget has raised expectations of an interest rate rise in the Australian community, and does the minister accept that this budget has painted a grim picture for Australians who have been going through difficult times and now look ahead with slightly more trepidation?</para>
<para>Labor's third budget is a typical high-taxing, high-spending budget. In the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline> under the headline 'Spending addiction fuels a new decade of deficits', Coorey writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the … Treasurer … relied on a late tax revenue surge to forecast a $9.3 billion surplus for this financial year … before embarking on a spending spree that drives the budget headlong into deficit for the next decade.</para></quote>
<para>Why did the Treasurer have to rely upon a windfall surplus rather than do the hard work of delivering a structural surplus, which is the right response in these fiscal times? Does the minister accept that taxpayers are again carrying the weight of Labor's high-spending agenda? And does the minister think that it is fair in a cost-of-living crisis, which has been spoken about by almost everybody here and acknowledged, that taxpayers should be carrying that burden, and that the taxpayer revenue should be spent so frivolously and immediately by the government?</para>
<para>In the same article Phillip Coorey said, 'The Albanese government has increased net spending by more than $24 billion over the next four years.' How does this additional spending align with the Treasurer's claims of spending restraint? Given the total increase in spending of over $300 billion the government has committed since coming to office, can the minister confirm a standard definition of the word 'restraint' has been used when applied? There is no evidence whatsoever that restraint has been applied to Labor's spending; it has increased and increased.</para>
<para>On energy rebates, again, in the AFR Steven Hamilton—no relation—writes, 'Energy rebates do not lower inflation.' If anything, they increase it by boosting aggregate demand. End of story. Does the government accept that the deployment of $300 energy rebates is both inflationary and a clear acknowledgement that its pre-election promise of reducing energy bills by $275 has failed?</para>
<para>Cherelle Murphy, the chief economist at EY, in her budget analysis wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With billions being spilled into the economy from 1 July, and without offsetting new spending with cuts elsewhere, the Budget has thwarted the task of tightening the structural deficit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It also undermines the government's inflation forecast—</para></quote>
<para>Does the minister accept this budget has ensured inflation will stay higher for longer? Does the minister accept the financial pain many Australians are now feeling will be drawn out for longer because this government refused to rein in its spending?</para>
<para>Prior to the 2022 election, Jim Chalmers said there were plenty of things they could do to reduce cost-of-living pressures, specifically mentioning reducing grocery prices. Can the minister point to any element of the budget or the previous two Labor budgets that led to a reduction in grocery prices, or point to a single grocery item that has gone down as a result of policies deployed by this government? After three failed attempts, is the government still trying to reduce grocery prices or has it given up? I note that, since coming to government, Labor have overseen an average rising in food prices of 11 per cent.</para>
<para>The Treasurer in his 6,000-word essay in <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">Monthly</inline> previously promised to remake capitalism. Does the predicted decade of deficits that this budget costs align with the Treasurer's vision? Is that what remade capitalism is—a decade of deficits? If there was a comparison made previously by the member for Parramatta to getting surpluses, we delivered 10 surpluses in a row; the government is guaranteeing 10 deficits in a row. Is that acceptable?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Groom for his contribution and I do note that he is the deputy chair of the economics committee, so he has a strong interest in this space. I have one word for him—that is, surplus. Surplus not in one year but in two years, something we haven't seen in years and years under those coalition governments. If he wants to talk about spending restraint and fiscal responsibility, that is my answer to him—two surpluses back to back.</para>
<para>I have been in this House now for a little over two years. I have been elected for a little over two years and there have been moments in the last two years that will stay with me forever regardless of how long I get to stay in this place. There is one that I want to share with everyone here today because it is a good indication of what good governments do. As a female federal member of parliament, International Women's Day is a very busy time in the calendar. You get invited to a lot of events. There was one event in particular that I made sure I went to and that was at a construction company down the road from my electorate office in Burwood. I must admit that I had some preconceived ideas about the make-up of the company and the type of workers they would have. But I really wanted to go to this International Women's Day event because I wanted to talk to the people there about all the measures we are taking as a government to ensure we have great gender equity in this country. So I bowled up and talked about the fact that we have, for the first time in our country's history, a majority-female federal government. But that in and of itself is not the achievement. The achievement is all the things that come from that: we've made child care more affordable, we've increased pay for those working in the aged-care sector, and we've made domestic and family violence leave a part of work entitlements. All of these measures are there because we have a majority-female federal government.</para>
<para>I finished on this one note, and I think it's important that I bring it up. I talked about the Paid Parental Leave scheme that the Labor government introduced and is strengthening. An important part of that is that part of the paid parental leave is put aside for the other parent. That was the key point that I wanted to make to this group of construction workers: we want to encourage both parents, mothers and fathers, to take leave so that they can provide care during this critical time.</para>
<para>I finished up my speech and asked if anyone had any questions. There was a gentleman who put his hand up, and I thought: 'Oh no. He's going to be accusing me of being too woke or the like.' But he put his hand up and he said something that really floored me. Mind you, he did it in front of all his colleagues, his male CEO and his male chair of the company. He said that, when his daughter was first born, he took a year off to look after her and it was the best year of his life; he bonded with her, and he was so grateful to be able to take that time off. That, to me, illustrates what good governments do: they recognise where the country is at and where society is moving towards—that is, to have both parents play a critical role in the care of their kids—and they help to nudge it there. So I'm so proud of the measures that we are taking on paid parental leave.</para>
<para>It was a Labor government that introduced this country's first government paid parental leave more than a decade ago, and it was something that I personally got to benefit from. And it's a Labor government that is strengthening that paid parental leave scheme. We are going to be increasing it to 26 weeks by 2026, and one of the key measures announced in this budget was that we are going to be paying superannuation on that paid parental leave. All of us in this place know that superannuation is an investment in someone's retirement. You put the money in now, and it's an investment that grows. We know that, at the moment, women retire with 25 per cent of the retirement income of men. This is a critical change that is going to change that. My lesson to those opposite is that, when you put women at the heart of your government, you also put women at the heart of your budget. This is the change that we need to see.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start by commending my coalition colleagues for some of the important issues they've raised in their contributions in the consideration in detail here, so I won't re-prosecute those important points that have already been made, but I certainly endorse them. I want to ask the minister a few questions about the increase in the size of the Public Service. I was quite surprised to see the dramatic growth in the number of public servants in the budget. It's a 36,000 increase to, I think, 209,000 public servants that are expected to be employed across the APS in the 2024-25 year. I'll clarify that absolutely does not include uniformed defence personnel. This, to my brief looking at the history of the Public Service, is the first time we've ever had more than 200,000 bureaucrats employed. I'm a strong supporter of a well-resourced Public Service that's independent, frank and fair, but I'm quite surprised that an increase of that size since we left office, more than 15 per cent, is justifiable or necessary.</para>
<para>I'd ask the minister to give us a breakdown of the justification for 36,000 additional public servants. Some lines have been used publicly that don't come anywhere near stacking up the justification for 36,000. There's this claim of re-internalisation. The finance minister has publicly indicated there are about 3½ thousand people in the category of re-internalisation. I don't know if there's an updated figure that the minister can confirm to the chamber, because 3½ thousand is about 10 per cent of that growth, of those 36,000, and, whilst there might have been some examples given of where we need more public servants, there's been nothing to justify 36,000. I'd really like to hear what that explanation is, because it's a lot of money—it's towards $24 billion, over the forward estimates, that we'd be spending on an extra 36,000 public servants. That's an enormous amount of money.</para>
<para>It's our responsibility to make sure that we expend taxpayer funds judiciously. Every dollar that's spent on any growth in government is coming out of the pockets of everyday Australians, and they don't need to be paying any more tax than is absolute necessary right now. For government to be growing at that rate—15 per cent growth in the Public Service within a couple of years of this Labor government—does certainly concern me. So I'm keen for the minister to give us an in-depth explanation of that.</para>
<para>The other thing that's quite astounding in this budget is the amount of government advertising that's been financed. There's some tricky wording in the budget papers around 'public awareness' and this and that. I've tallied up nearly $200 million of government advertising that's either happening now or will happen into the next financial year—the next financial year, of course, being an election year. If it's been advertising the stage 3 tax cuts, on what basis would someone need that? Which Australian out there has to speak to their employer and say, 'Hey, I just want you to make sure that you've adjusted my tax rate from this to this'? The obligation is on the person paying to do so.</para>
<para>The fact that Australians are getting a tax cut is all well and good, but spending $40 million advertising something which occurs automatically is just blatantly the government trying to improve their dismal electoral fortunes; it is not achieving any valuable outcome from that expenditure. There's $54 million for the made in Australia policy suite. Again, if you're watching the footie or the nightly news, on what basis do you need to be told that the government is doing all these new things for tax incentives for billionaires? I mean, you could send a letter to all the people who might actually access this policy, and that might cost $54, not $54 million. It's completely unnecessary, but of course it smacks of the fact that a pollster has said to the government, 'You need to dramatically improve your government's reputation on some of these issues, so put a lot of money into government advertising, in an election year, in the budget.' So I'd ask the minister to explain on what basis there's any justification—other than for the personal political benefit of the government—for the sorts of expenditure that have been outlined.</para>
<para>We strongly support important public messaging, on things like health and domestic violence. There's some very important government advertising that should absolutely occur. But some of this political advertising should be justified by the minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the time available to me, I'll respond to some of the questions that have been put to me. But I think it's worth outlining the budget strategy that is contained within these appropriation bills. Firstly, it's to ensure that Australians are equipped to deal with some of the cost-of-living pressures that they're encountering.</para>
<para>The shadow Assistant Treasurer, in his contribution, expressed his concern about inflation. You can imagine how concerned he must have been as they left office, when inflation was running at over six per cent!</para>
<para>We've managed to halve inflation. We still think it's running too high, and our efforts are directed towards ensuring we can bring it back within the Reserve Bank's inflation target zone—predicted, on Treasury analysis, to occur by the end of this calendar year. Of course that's important, because it enables the Reserve Bank, then, to review its interest rate setting as to taking the pressure off interest rates.</para>
<para>The budget is all about ensuring that we can deal with these cost-of-living issues and ensuring, in the area of energy bills, $300 of energy bill relief to every household in the country. I have to say that, if you're concerned about cost-of-living pressure, the entry price to that conversation is not what you say but what you actually do. Over the last two years, we've seen the coalition fail time and time again when they've had the opportunity to support cost-of-living relief and measures which will improve affordability for Australian households.</para>
<para>On wages, they've opposed every wage increase. When we said it was reasonable for Australians on the minimum wage to get an increase of a dollar an hour, this, according to the Leader of the Opposition, was something that was going to bring the economy to its knees. Wages are growing faster and more sustainably than at any time over the last decade. That's actually a deliberate design feature of our government, and the opposite was a deliberate design feature under the coalition.</para>
<para>On medicines, we introduced policies which will reduce the price of medicines. Those opposite campaigned against those policies. I'm pleased to say that not only have we reached agreement with the Pharmacy Guild on these measures but Australians now are paying sustainably lower prices for the medicines that they have been prescribed and that they need to keep them healthy.</para>
<para>The energy bill rebate was voted against by that mob over there. Energy price caps were voted against by that mob over there. So they whinge and carry on about energy prices and cost-of-living increases but, every time they have the opportunity to do something about them, they vote against it. So it's not what they say; it's what they actually do that matters. We're putting in place measures which will support Australian households. They're opposing and voting against every single one of those measures.</para>
<para>I think it was the member for Sturt who asked some questions about the growth in Public Service numbers, an important issue. It is important, as every member in this place would understand, that we have a well-staffed, professional, permanent Public Service which is able to provide frank and fearless advice to the government of the day. I see the member for Canberra in the chamber, and this is something that I know she feels very passionate about.</para>
<para>When we came into government, up to a third of the staff of critical agencies were contractors or labour-hire employers. Those opposite say they care about veterans and, whenever they get the opportunity, they have something nice to say about our veterans, and we agree with that. But it's not what you say; it's what you actually do. One-third of the staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs were labour-hire or contract staff. I'm not talking about low-level staff; it went right up to the SES level. The direct impact of the deliberate staffing policy of the coalition was that millions and millions of dollars worth of claims made by veterans weren't being processed because the department didn't have the staff, particularly the professional staff.</para>
<para>So, when the member for Sturt asked us why we have increased APS numbers and converted outsourced staff and contract staff into permanent APS employees, there's your reason: because it was costing the Australian taxpayer dearly and it was costing people who rely on government services dearly. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my questions to the government on the budget, I'd like to focus on productivity, because productivity is the fundamental driver of living standards growth in this country. It drives wages, it drives growth and it reduces prices. So if we can get productivity right then we can get the entire economy moving and bring down inflation to boot. But productivity growth in Australia is at a 60-year low, and Australia has even transitioned to being a net exporter of capital, which is concerning if we understand that capital and investment are a key driver of productivity. We know that this makes a huge difference, and we know that, frankly, if we achieved our long-term rates of productivity growth over the next 40 years, we would be literally 40 per cent better off than we would be if we stuck with the low productivity growth that we have right now. The issue on productivity is not in the business sector; it is also in the government sector, which is a significant part of the economy and which is where some economists are saying that some of our greatest challenges in productivity growth are coming from.</para>
<para>I appreciate that government might say, 'Well, this is about the Future Made in Australia package.' I appreciate that there are some potential positive elements of that package. However, I'm concerned that the vast majority of Australian businesses will not benefit from that package, so we need approaches on productivity growth that reach more broadly across the economy.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge, because I think it's important to be fair, that there are some things in the budget which I think do drive productivity growth, such as the simplification of the Foreign Investment Review Board, the removal of nuisance tariffs, and the single front door for investment. They are the positive parts. But one of the questions I want to ask the government is: what are the broader reforms to make productivity grow?</para>
<para>The Productivity Commission, in its most recent report last year, did a five-year review of productivity growth and identified dozens of recommendations to improve productivity. So my question is: where's the government's formal response to the Productivity Commission's <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">dvancing prosperity</inline> report? If we could understand what the government's perspective is on all of the recommendations that have been made by people completely focused on productivity then we would have a better idea of where productivity is going. That's the first question.</para>
<para>The second issue I want to talk about is tax reform. I have been in this parliament for two years, talking about tax reform, and I was talking about tax reform long before I got here. When I talk to key productivity experts across the country, they tell me that two of the biggest drivers of productivity growth are tax and IR. In both of those areas, certainly from a taxation point of view, the government has made steps, but not fundamental changes—nor, to be honest, has the coalition, who also made commitments about fundamental changes. What changes would the government make to actually fundamentally improve the productivity of our economy? On the second point, I've had many debates about IR in this place. The challenge I want to put to the government on industrial relations is: why won't you move to simplify the awards? This is something that could increase productivity, certainly in our businesses, but at the same time be a good thing for workers' wages as well. It could actually unlock productive resources into the economy.</para>
<para>This is my final question to the government, so the government has a chance to reply before 1.30: what steps are the government taking to improve productivity in the government sector? We need to make it easy to build and grow businesses in this country, but we also need to make sure that we are pursuing productivity growth in the government sector, given it's such a significant part of the economy. I'll leave those questions with the minister. I'll be very interested in his reply.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wentworth for her questions and for her broad engagement across this and so many other pieces of legislation that we're dealing with in the parliament. She rightly focuses her questions around the productivity challenge, which is something that is bedevilling countries around the world.</para>
<para>The focus of this government in driving national productivity is getting investment into our energy sector, because energy is going to drive productive development in not only manufacturing but every other sector of the economy over the next few decades. If we get energy right, it will deliver massive increases in our productive capacity. It's why we're putting so much focus on the generation of energy. It's why we're putting so much focus on the distribution of energy. The Rewiring the Nation program is about ensuring that the distribution system is connecting the places where energy is being generated to where it is being used—and they're not the same places that they have been over the last two or three decades.</para>
<para>We're also looking at ensuring that we are investing in the energy sources that will drive productive capacity over the century to come, particularly in the area of mobile fuels. Hydrogen is going to be the energy source which drives so much in the area of mobile fuels but also in the area of metal manufacturing and other heavy industry as well. It's why we are not only investing but also ensuring, in the area of taxation, for example—you asked about tax reform—that we're putting in place tax incentives which encourage not only investment in hydrogen but also the production of hydrogen. The production credits are about driving the outputs of, not the inputs into, energy generation. Of course, energy matters a lot, and I will argue that it will be one of the things that will drive productive growth throughout the economy over the next century.</para>
<para>But it's also about our workforce, which is why so much of the contribution that we've made in this budget is around vocational education and training, our skills agenda and higher education. The education minister wants to see more kids from backgrounds like mine and his entering university and having the benefits that higher education brings not only to them but also to our nation. The cost of a university degree and, indeed, the cost of the HECS loan, which supports the university degree, are things which are impacting students across the country. That's why we're wiping $3 billion off university debt, changing the way that indexation of university HECS debts are calculated and making a big investment in skills development throughout the country.</para>
<para>Of course, government investment, including in the energy system and in skills development, is absolutely critical, but we know it's going to be business investment and capital formation that are going to drive productive capacity over the decades ahead. Government has got a role to play, and individuals have got a role to play, but business investment is absolutely critical. Yes, Australians are doing it tough, and we know that immediate conditions are difficult. But, when I look to the near future, two things give me a lot of hope: record unemployment and record number of people in jobs. That is the miracle of the Australian economy over the last two years. There was a record number of jobs created—close to 800,000—and record low unemployment. That is fantastic. It's good for not only them and the budget bottom line but also business investment. There has been a very strong pipeline of business investment and record levels of business investment over the last two years.</para>
<para>These are the things that are going to drive productive capacity in the economy over the year ahead. So, whilst we have some near-term challenges, there's no doubt about it. That's what our budget strategy, which is about not only providing cost-of-living relief and fiscal restraint but investing in the areas that are going to drive productive capacity, will do over the decade ahead. I agree with the member for Wentworth: more focus and more discussion around productivity challenges are absolutely essential. We're doing our bit in this budget, and we hope to do much more over the years ahead.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:32 to 16:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>154</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Health and Aged Care Portfolio: $18,934,460,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and I give the call to the minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The May budget continues to deliver on our promise to Australians and continues to deliver on our pledge to build a better economy and a fairer society. Labor governments want to make Medicare stronger and medicines cheaper. The May budget invested up to $3 billion for cheaper medicines and the community pharmacies that distribute them, and we are freezing the maximum cost of PBS prescriptions for everyone who needs them. This year and next year, no-one will pay more than $31.60 for a PBS medication. Six out of 10 PBS scripts go to pensioners and concession card holders. We are freezing the cost of their medicines for five years, meaning that no pensioner and no concession card holder will pay more than $7.70 for the medicine that they need. In my north-side community, we have already seen the tangible benefits of Labor's cheaper medicines, with Lilley locals saving more than $2.1 million on reduced co-payments so far.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has worked hard to improve the quality of life for older Australians. Since our first budget in October 2022, total investment in aged care has increased by 30 per cent. We have put nurses back into nursing homes. We have given residents more time with their carers. We have lifted wages in the sector. And we've improved transparency and accountability.</para>
<para>The 2024 budget builds on that work. It's a budget for the here and now and it's a budget for the decades to come. It's a budget that sets the aged-care sector up for the next stage of reform. The 2024 budget invests $2.2 billion to create stronger links between aged care and the rest of the health system, to deliver real benefits to older people in Australia. It will improve wait times for older Australians who need aged-care services in their home, reinforce the foundations that underpin quality care, bolster the aged-care workforce, deliver an enhanced regulator and create better digital systems.</para>
<para>The Albanese government understands that most older Australians want to live independently in their own home in the community they love, and, after the Treasurer handed down the budget last month, I travelled to Far North Queensland to meet with aged-care recipients and their carers. I met Patricia and her in-home carer, Chinatsu, at her home in Woree, about 15 minutes outside of Cairns. Patricia relocated from Adelaide with her late partner, Charlie, in 1988. They moved into their home a week after arriving, and she's lived there ever since. Since Charlie passed away, Patricia has remained independent in her home with the support of Chinatsu, who visits two hours a fortnight for domestic assistance and a chat. When I asked Patricia what her plans were for the future, she told me firmly: 'This is my home. I am going to live here.'</para>
<para>That's why, in the May budget, the Albanese government invested $531.4 million to fund an extra 24,100 home-care packages. This will help more people like Patricia to get the aged-care services that they need to live in their homes, and, importantly, it will bring down wait times before 300,000 home-care recipients are transferred across to our new Support at Home program.</para>
<para>The Albanese government understands the need to develop and grow the aged-care workforce and find more dedicated and skilled workers like Chinatsu. The 2024 budget invests $88.4 million to attract and retain skilled aged-care workers and to improve career pathways. We have extended the home-care workforce program to channel 4,000 workers to rural and remote areas. Our nursing clinical placements program will support 8,000 nursing students to undertake a clinical placement in aged care. Our Transition to Practice Program will empower 2,215 nurses to start a rewarding career in aged care. Our nursing scholarships program will give 1,050 students a scholarship to build their skills in aged care. Our skills development program will create free specialised modules for aged-care workers and volunteers to learn about topics like wound management, trauma-informed care and supporting people living with dementia.</para>
<para>These measures are in addition to other proud Labor initiatives including fee-free TAFE, more university places, more paid prac placements and a new visa pathway to attract international workers. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many of us wouldn't live anywhere but in the bush. But the fact is that the further you live away from the cities then the more challenging access to health services becomes. If you live in regional, rural or remote Australia, you are likely to be: firstly, older; secondly, sicker; and thirdly, poorer health outcomes are in line for you than your city cousins. If we're ever going to turn these damning statistics around then access to your local GP means everything.</para>
<para>Medicare is the foundation of our primary healthcare system. I have to agree with Minister Butler when he said 'Bulk billing is the beating heart of Medicare.' But despite those words, Medicare has been significantly weakened since Labor came to government two long years ago. Under Labor it's never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. Since July last year, the GP bulk-billing rate has decreased by four per cent. That is despite this government pumping millions of taxpayer dollars into bulk-billing incentives. That has obviously failed. Bulk billing has plummeted by 11 per cent since this government came into power. It's fallen from 88.5 per cent under the former Liberal National government to just 77 per cent under Minister Butler.</para>
<para>Over the same period, we've also seen 3.1 million fewer GP attendances. That's because it's never been harder or more expensive to see that doctor. It's hurting Australians. It is hurting them in their hip pockets at a time when they are already struggling under serious rising cost-of-living pressures. Due to cost concerns alone, 1.2 million Australians avoided seeing a GP last year. We already know the flow-on effects that has: more patients are being pushed into our overflowing emergency departments. Therefore, I ask the minister: is the government concerned about patients being pushed towards our overburdened hospital system because of increasing costs and the difficulties accessing a GP?</para>
<para>It's not rocket science when we start talking about workforce challenges. The key issue that everyone faces when they need to see a GP is there just aren't GPs available in the bush or in the regions. You don't need another inquiry to work that out; all you need to do is listen to local communities and they'll tell you loud and clear. It's obvious to me that Minister Butler hasn't listened because he has not addressed this in this budget. There is nothing to incentivise new locally-trained GPs. There is nothing to implement a comprehensive national workforce strategy, which is so desperately needed. This is simply bad oversight as far as I'm concerned. It's bad for patients and preventative health outcomes, it is bad for the hip pockets of struggling Australians and it is bad for our already under pressure hospital systems.</para>
<para>According to the Royal Australian College of GPs, the Australian GP shortfall is expected to approach 11,000 by 2031. This is because fewer medical graduates are choosing general practice as a speciality. Why? Why would a junior doctor become a GP when they're paid about three-quarters of the salary of their counterparts in hospitals? Why would you do it? This pay gap is one of biggest disincentives to choosing a career in general practice, along with the loss of paid leave. That's why the Liberal Nationals government announced a $400 million plan to incentivise more junior doctors to enter GP practice. It should be re-implemented. This will provide junior doctors with the direct financial incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements and support for prevocational training.</para>
<para>I've also seen firsthand, through the Burnie Rural Clinic School, the impact of home-trained GP graduates and the effect that has on a region. They train locally. They come from the local region, and they stay and work locally. Therefore, they're more likely to remain in those regional areas. It's critical to delivering the essential health care that every Australian would expect no matter where they live. Our initiative will address Labor's primary care crisis. Therefore I ask the minister— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll start by saying that the member for Braddon, given some of his comments, has been extremely misinformed, because Tasmania has been a significant beneficiary of the Albanese Labor government's investments into Medicare, bulk-billing and the PBS. Look at the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. I know that in my region and in the member for Dobell's region, there were over 10,000 additional bulk-billed visits to the GP. Those people are having their chronic medical conditions seen to so that they don't become acutely exacerbated, resulting in their ending up in the emergency department.</para>
<para>Look at freezing the price of medications—the PBS co-payment that's coming up. Look at the cheaper medicines act that we passed early on. I have seen that policy actually work on the ground of a health facility. People are able to afford their blood thinners, their MDIs, their puffers and their diabetes medication. I have seen that work in real time. That is the result of an Albanese Labor government, led by a fantastic health executive who know that Medicare, with universal access to doctors and medications, is one of the most important things that a country can have.</para>
<para>Then we have our urgent-care clinics. I think this isn't said often enough: we are creating a new model of care and a new speciality in Australia—urgent-care medicine. If you are too sick for the GP but not sick enough for the ED, prior to the election of the Albanese Labor government, you would have nowhere to go. You'd be going to an overcrowded emergency department or you'd be going to a general practitioner who is under significant strain from the number of patients that they are seeing in the community. Now you have somewhere to go. I have seen firsthand that these clinics on the Central Coast and across Australia are making a difference.</para>
<para>On the Central Coast alone, there were over 10,000 visits to our urgent-care clinics. Across the country, there were over 400,000 visits to these urgent-care clinics. We're talking about people with conditions like exacerbation of asthma and extremity trauma, as well as unwell children with respiratory disease and gastrointestinal disease. These are patients who would have otherwise gone to emergency departments or who may have been too complex for the clinic of the general practitioner. They would have had nowhere to go, but now they do, thanks to the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>These urgent-care clinics are right across the world. They're in other countries as well. We saw this and we recognised this. The health executive and the Prime Minister saw this, and we thought, 'This is going to work in Australia,' and it is working in Australia. This is part of the Albanese Labor government's broader plan to strengthen Medicare right across the board. We're talking about the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, the PBS co-payment freeze and the provision of affordable medications. We've just signed the recent community pharmacy agreement with our friends in the community pharmacy sector.</para>
<para>We've established these urgent-care clinics, and we're working with universities and with our education institutions to make sure that we can encourage more medical students to pick general practice as a speciality. It is a rewarding career to be a general practitioner. It's a challenging career, but it's a rewarding career. It's one of the only medical specialties where you will see an undifferentiated patient—a patient who comes in with a symptom where you have to figure out what's wrong with them and then either treat and manage them or refer them on to another speciality or to a higher level care centre. It's a challenging but rewarding career. It's a career where you see all manner of patients across the lifespan from babies to the middle-aged and all the way to our young-at-heart Australians. It is a rewarding career and I would encourage medical students across this country to select general practice as a speciality, because you'll be making a difference in the healthcare landscape of this country. Know that, in the Albanese Labor government, you have a Medicare system, and a general practice system, that is supported by our government—it is absolutely supported by our government—whether it be in the urgent care space or with bulk-billing incentives and the like.</para>
<para>But I want to go back to the urgent care clinics, and I think this is really important: over one in four visits are made by someone aged under 15 years. There is a significant disease burden from the paediatric population that would otherwise be going to the GP or the ED that is now going to the urgent care clinics—and they're being seen in a timely manner, which is not only good for the kids; it is also good for the parents and the wider health landscape across the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's often been said that government budgets are an expression of priorities. What we saw from the most recent budget is that the Albanese government is not prioritising the mental health of Australians. Australia is in the middle of a mental health crisis. That fact is undisputed by experts and stakeholders in the sector. The previous coalition government took the crisis seriously. In our last budget in 2021 we invested a historic $2.3 billion in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. That funding guaranteed essential services and led landmark reforms in mental health support and treatment. We did that because every year, sadly, more than 3,000 people die by suicide, and it remains the leading cause of death for Australians between the age of 15 and 44 years. In addition, one in five Australians experience some form of chronic or episodic mental illness each year.</para>
<para>This Labor government have already shown that they don't take this issue seriously enough. Budget night marked 500 days since the Albanese government's cuts to the Better Access initiative, reducing the number of Medicare subsidised psychology sessions available for vulnerable Australians from 20 back down to 10. This change ripped away affordable access to psychology sessions for around 240,000 Australians who had been prescribed the additional 10 psychology sessions by their medical practitioner. Under our government, Australians were able to access affordable sessions roughly every two weeks. Under this government, that changed to less than monthly. Anyone who is or loves a person with a chronic or complex mental health condition will tell you that this isn't enough. We raised the number of Medicare subsidised sessions because doing so saved lives. I know it did because, even before COVID, as the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention group, I had mental health patients and stakeholders in the sector saying to me that 10 sessions were simply not enough.</para>
<para>The government's cuts have made life harder for Australians who are already struggling. There have been recent reports of vulnerable Australians having to rely on buy-now pay-later platforms like Afterpay in order to access the mental health support they need amidst the rising cost-of-living pressures. That's particularly concerning when we know that short-term loan arrangements can lead to additional stress for vulnerable Australians. Australians with chronic and complex mental health conditions should have affordable access to the consistent specialised treatment they need from a psychologist because they deserve the full level of support that's been prescribed to them. It would be completely unacceptable, for example, to purposely restrict patients to only half the course of treatment for a physical health condition, but we're doing it in mental health. As the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, reiterated in his budget in reply, a re-elected coalition government will restore the number of Medicare subsidised psychological sessions from 10 to 20 on a permanent basis.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has missed a critical opportunity to listen to the calls of experts and patients by reinstating full access to Medicare subsidised psychology services, as the coalition has committed to doing. Just as physical health shouldn't be a luxury, mental health shouldn't be a luxury. So I ask the government: why does this budget fail to provide adequate support services to ensure Australians have access to mental health treatment they need, particularly when it comes to the more complex and chronic mental health conditions in the form of establishing new measures or reinstating old ones.</para>
<para>Also shockingly, this budget has quietly dissolved the National Mental Health Commission, including the National Suicide Prevention Office. Those bodies were established as a recognition of the depth and significance of this issue. The dissolution of those bodies is yet another indication that this government is not prioritising the mental health of the Australian community. As I said at the start of my contribution: government budgets are an expression of priorities. So above all I ask the government why is it not properly responding to the Australian mental health crisis that this country is facing? Why is this not a priority for the Albanese Labor government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Medical misogyny is not a term that I learnt in any medical textbook. It's a phrase that I became familiar with only once I became a parliamentarian. It refers to the inbuilt bias against women that is baked into the medical system. I was aware of it when I practised, particularly in women presenting with cardiac symptoms—who often presented late or were misdiagnosed and had poor outcomes—but I probably didn't fully appreciate it.</para>
<para>Medical misogyny occurs for lots of reasons. It refers to the denialism that women face when they present with their symptoms, which may not necessarily be textbook. It refers to the silencing and shaming of women. It refers to a lack of appreciation for how women's health issues are often related to hormonal and reproductive phases of their life. And it also refers to, frankly, the poor representation of all types of women—ethnicities, shapes and sizes—in clinical trials—those same clinical trials that lead to the registration of drugs, which then are dispersed to millions of women in the market. And so is it any wonder that some women simply don't respond to those drugs, as described in actual journal articles? It starts at the root.</para>
<para>This government has taken a strong focus on women's health. We're really running the ruler over our women's health approach in Medicare. One of the first measures we introduced was the Women's Health Summit. That was led by assistant minister Ged Carney in March of this year. It was very much informed by a survey of 3,000 women around Australia, which demonstrated that two out of three women experienced a type of medical bias in the health system—something we now call 'medical misogyny'. Perhaps the archetypal condition is endometriosis. Endometriosis affects about a million Australian women. That's a lot of women. It affects one in nine women, and it takes, on average, seven years to diagnose. Seven years! That's extraordinary. Cancer doesn't take seven years to diagnose, and yet endometriosis takes seven years. And the symptoms are not particularly hard; they're basically symptoms that occur with a woman's cycle. They're cyclical symptoms—whether they be tummy bloating, pain in the abdomen or in the pelvis, diarrhoea or constipation, painful sex—and yet it is very poorly recognised in the health system.</para>
<para>This is why we have funded 20 endometriosis clinics and pelvic pain clinics right around the country. I had the privilege of visiting one. I went to the EACH endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic in Ringwood East, a very long way from my electorate. I was really pleased to visit the clinic because what I saw there was multidisciplinary care. It was GP led, but supported by dietitians, physios, occupational therapists. They even had an ultrasound on site. This clinic was overflowing with patients. Why? Because people from far and wide are attending this clinic. I learnt that patients from as far away as Traralgon would turn up, often with wads of files, because they had been going from pillar to post to try and get good advice. They would come to the EACH clinic and it was such a relief.</para>
<para>Endometriosis is a chronic condition; there is no cure for it. This clinic offers a one-hour consultation that is bulk-billed. It is free. It is walk-in. The public waiting list to see a specialist for chronic pelvic pain is actually between one to four years. One to four years to just get in through the front door! This clinic has shortened that waiting time to 14 days. And I've never met such a dedicated, impassioned group of healthcare workers, who were simply asking us for more space. What a good problem to have! They had simply run out of space, and as a result the GP was working from home, seeing patients, and she wanted an extra consulting room. They had also planned on partnering with a hospital in the area, Eastern Health Box Hill, in order to have consultant gynaecologists also attend with their doctors.</para>
<para>On that note, we have increased the Medicare rebate for women to see consultant gynaecologists in order to make it much more affordable and accessible for them to do so. Again, this is a way that we are ironing out the biases in the system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, being the federal budget, and I specifically want to address the areas of women's health, urgent care clinics and mental health. Labor heralded this budget as putting women's health as a central component. There are some parts of this budget that are very positive for women's health, and the coalition has acknowledged this and will continue to acknowledge this. We have over the past couple of decades in particular made significant gains in many areas of women's health, particularly, for example, in the area of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.</para>
<para>However, many Australian women suffer from chronic pelvic pain—conditions such as endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and chronic period pain. These conditions are debilitating and distressing and impair women's ability to live their lives to the fullest. Therefore, the coalition does welcome the government's investment into women's health, which was $49.9 million over four years, to support women who have endometriosis and pelvic pain. The government has acknowledged that this builds on significant work that was commenced by the coalition in this critical area. The funding will support gynaecology consultations of 45 minutes or longer for patients with complex conditions such as endometriosis, which we know requires specialised care.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased to say that the coalition had led the way in committing significant funding to initially set up this process so that women suffering from endometriosis and pelvic pain have access to the support they need. I do commend the government for continuing the work that was started by former coalition governments.</para>
<para>We want to ensure, though, that the establishment of the pelvic pain clinics will result in the integrated multidisciplinary care that the coalition committed to delivering. Therefore, my question to the government is: can the government provide any data on the number of additional services that are being provided to women suffering from endometriosis and POS since these clinics were established? We do recognise, as the federal opposition Leader said in his budget reply speech, that more needs to be done to support women's health. That's why I'm very pleased to be part of a coalition that is committed to undertake a review of women's health items available through Medicare and the PBS and also to support measures and develop policy around primary care as well as around menopause and perimenopause.</para>
<para>I turn now to ovarian cancer. It's a silent cancer, difficult to diagnose and, tragically, often diagnosed too late for treatment. The coalition, in its budget reply this year, again committed to increasing funding for this scourge and has committed $4 million in funding for Ovarian Cancer Australia.</para>
<para>I turn now to urgent care clinics. Despite the urgency of Labor's primary care crisis, the budget's Strengthening Medicare package focuses on an unproven election commitment by funding an additional 29 urgent care clinics. In principle, urgent care clinics are a very good idea. However, we have found that, in the delivery of this policy, many urgent care clinics have already been established that are not open for the promised extended hours. We've heard reports that they are not even equipped with the critical services necessary to address patients' urgent inquiries and illnesses, as they were established to do. Therefore, my question to the government is: has the government undertaken an evaluation of the existing urgent care clinics to assess whether they are achieving their intended purpose of taking pressure off local emergency departments, prior to the funding of an additional 29 that was announced in this budget?</para>
<para>In the time allocated, I want to talk about mental health. Mental ill health is a terrible scourge in our community, particularly with rising rates among our teenagers and younger people. We previously had 20 Medicare subsidised psychology sessions. The government in the last budget took that away, halving it to 10. The coalition has repeatedly asked for the extra 10 to be put back into the system. We have committed to putting those extra 10 back in to ensure that people who are experiencing mental health crises are not punished by not being able to afford to see a psychologist at a time when they really need to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government, with its wonderful health team, which is doing a really great job in getting equitable health care to all Australians, whether it be newborn screening programs; increasing the number of disorders tested for; new MRI licences, of which there are five in my lecture of Macarthur, enabling people to get urgent scans done and rebated by Medicare; the urgent care centres; more funding for medical research; or supporting organisations such as the Children's Tumour Foundation and other really excellent medical organisations, including the DIPG group for children with brain cancers. The health team is doing a fantastic job: Mark Butler, the Minister for Health and Aged Care; Assistant Minister Ged Kearney, the member for Cooper; and Emma McBride, the member for Dobell. They are doing a wonderful job, trying to repair the damage that was done over 10 years of rule by the Liberal and National parties.</para>
<para>You ask me what evidence there is for that. I can tell you I have half a century of experience in the health system. I saw the development of Medibank, our first national health insurance scheme, by Gough Whitlam. It was the first time in Australia that people who had socioeconomic challenges could actually get access to decent health care without bankrupting themselves. We saw that destroyed by the Fraser government when it came into power. We saw the constant undermining of Medicare, which was introduced by the Hawke Labor government, during more than 10 years of Liberal Party rule. The present Leader of the Liberal Party did his best to get rid of universal access to bulk-billing, with almost tragic results. Thankfully, he was stopped, but then there was the gradual withering of Medicare on the vine under the Liberal governments of Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott—a tragedy in the making.</para>
<para>We are trying to repair some of that damage, and Mark Butler and his team are doing a great job. The tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentives has led to increasing rates of bulk-billing after a 10-year decline, and the results released, I think, yesterday showed an increase of almost 3½ per cent in bulk-billing rates around the country. That's really important in my electorate. It is really important for equitable health care, and it's really only Labor that understands it. The Liberal and National parties do not understand it. We see some of the worst health statistics in the country in areas where they have National Party members, such as Parkes, and regional Liberal Party members, such as Grey in South Australia. There are really terrible health statistics in terms of life expectancies and incidence of things like breast cancer, bowel cancer and cardiovascular disease. After 10 years, the statistics are getting worse, not better, and only Labor knows how to improve that.</para>
<para>Our 2024-25 budget includes funding for things like the PrOSPeCT trial, which is looking at genetic markers for certain cancers, like breast cancer, prostate cancer and bowel cancer. This will dramatically improve health outcomes. Our new medicines funding is unbelievably good. We now have access to some of the most advanced medicines in the world for very little cost to the individual patient. The Albanese government is also delivering $4.3 billion to deliver cheaper medicines through 60-day prescribing and the freezing of payments for medications for people on healthcare cards and even people who are paying privately. This is really making access to health care much more equitable and having a huge effect around the country, particularly in my electorate of Macarthur. In the new budget, we're putting in $1.4 billion for groundbreaking new health and medical research, through the Medical Research Future Fund. It's a really great advancement.</para>
<para>Labor understands the importance of having a universal healthcare insurance scheme that gives equitable access, whether you live in the inner city or rural, regional or remote areas. Our Macarthur residents already have saved over $2.1 million thanks to our government's policies on cheaper medicines. We will now save more with better access to MRI scans— <inline font-style="italic">(T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 and the consideration in detail of the Health and Age Care portfolio. Regional Australia has felt the brunt of subpar health services for far too long. From maternity bypasses, like we've seen recently at the Gladstone and Biloela hospitals, to the lack of GPs and specialists, it is an issue no matter where you live in the Flynn electorate, in Central Queensland. This is not acceptable in capital cities like Brisbane and Canberra, and it shouldn't be acceptable in big regional electorates such as Flynn.</para>
<para>Aged care is a significant issue that needs serious attention and practical outcomes and solutions. At a time when waiting lists for home-care packages have blown out, we know that the next generation of older Australians will want to stay in their homes for longer. Labor's budget has only provided an additional 24,100 home-care packages. This follows revelations that a mere 9,500 additional home-care packages have been released by the Albanese Labor government. This compares to 50,000 older Australians who are already waiting on the national priority system for home-care packages, and this demand is growing. Demand for home-care packages grew over the last quarter by 14 per cent, while new home-care recipients represented only seven per cent of the HCP Program. It also compares to the 80,000 additional home-care packages provided by the coalition over our last two years in government. It is clear that demand is far outpacing the supply of home-care packages under this government.</para>
<para>Recent data has shown that some of the most vulnerable older Australians are waiting as long as an entire year to get access to home-care packages. Wait times for level 3 packages have blown out to nine to 12 months, while wait times for level 4 packages have risen to six to nine months. Why did the government fail to provide even half the number of additional home-care packages needed to address the current waitlist, and will the government commit to urgently bringing down home-care wait times so that older Australians get the support they need to stay in their own homes for longer?</para>
<para>Last year, Carinity Summit Cottages, an aged-care facility in Mount Morgan, in my electorate of Flynn, closed. They advised that the ongoing nationwide shortage of aged-care staff combined with Mount Morgan's regional location had made staffing the facility incredibly difficult. Given the national care workforce shortage and the increased difficulty in recruiting staff, the only viable option was for Carinity aged-care cottages to close. The Labor government misunderstand that their one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work, particularly in regional Australia. I wrote to the Minister for Aged Care asking what the Labor government is doing to stop this aged-care facility and others around the electorate from closing. I ask again: what is the government doing to stop more of these aged-care facilities from closing?</para>
<para>The Labor government made an election commitment to fund an additional 29 urgent care clinics, including one in Rockhampton and one in Bundaberg. Not only are these urgent care clinics that have already been established not open for the promised extended hours but we have also heard reports that they have not even been equipped with the critical services necessary to treat patients for urgent injuries and illnesses, as they were intended to be. Can the minister explain why Rockhampton and Bundaberg were chosen as locations for these urgent care clinics? Will the minister commit to opening and funding urgent care clinics in locations such as Gladstone, Gracemere, Biloela and Emerald?</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I hosted the general practitioners, health professionals and local community advocates for a regional health roundtable in Gladstone. Topics of discussion included challenges in recruiting and retaining staff, lack of GPs in regional Australia, underserviced areas, development of local health training opportunities and policy initiatives to improve regional health outcomes. It was an important opportunity for local professionals to discuss regional health challenges, as well as the practical solutions and initiatives that can be implemented by both state and federal governments. Ultimately, the No. 1 issue was the lack of GPs and health professionals overall. I strongly welcome Peter Dutton's announcement that he will incentivise junior doctor training and general practice. Working with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association, a coalition government would invest $400 million to provide junior doctors who train in general practice with incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements and support for prevocational training. I ask the minister: will this commitment be matched by the Labor government? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government is delivering historic investments to strengthen Medicare and reduce the cost of medicines. Our unwavering commitment to strengthening Medicare and the Australian healthcare system is evident in the measures we've introduced in this budget. With more Medicare urgent care clinics—including one at Top Ryde in Bennelong—expanded free mental health services, higher Medicare rebates for essential medical tests and a significant women's health package, we are ensuring that every Australian has access to the health care they expect and deserve.</para>
<para>In our 2023-24 budget, we've made a groundbreaking $6.1 billion investment to strengthen Medicare, including a $3½ billion commitment to triple the bulk-billing incentive. This initiative alone benefits over 11 million Australians, marking the largest investment in bulk billing in Medicare history. We know this initiative is working because, since the introduction of this incentive, the GP bulk-billing rate has risen by 3.4 per cent, resulting in over 950,000 additional bulk-billed visits. Building on this success, the 2024-25 budget further allocates $2.8 billion to continue strengthening Medicare with more Medicare urgent care clinics, more free mental health services and higher medical rebates for many common tests, including investments in women's health.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Bennelong, health care isn't just something we think about when it's time to go to the doctor. Macquarie Park, one of the largest innovation, research and development precincts in the state and the country, is also home to some of the biggest healthcare providers. Bennelong stands at the forefront of medical advancements and healthcare innovations. One critical area of focus in our healthcare strategy is supporting and enhancing cardiac technical services. Cardiac implanted electronic devices such as pacemakers, implantable loop recorders and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators play a vital role in treating life-threatening heart conditions including irregular heartbeats, heart failure and sudden cardiac death. These devices are not just medical marvels; they are lifelines for countless Australians.</para>
<para>Australia is home to five companies providing these life-saving products, including Abbott and Medtronic, both based in Bennelong. Ensuring these devices are supported throughout their life span, often over 10 years, requires ongoing servicing by highly trained cardiac technicians in collaboration with cardiologists. These technical services are essential for the clinical effectiveness of the devices and are provided in various inpatient and outpatient settings nationwide. The former government initiated significant reforms to the funding arrangements for these technicians, impacting the prescribed list for medical devices and human tissue products. However, they did so with limited advice and without fully understanding the potential workforce and patient impacts, especially in rural and regional areas. These essential services were at risk due to these misguided decisions.</para>
<para>Thankfully, the new government and its new Minister for Health and Aged Care—one that recognises the critical nature of these services—have ensured their continuation under the prescribed list until an alternative model is agreed upon. This important decision of the Labor government will ensure that patients can continue to receive vital services alongside their clinical care and that these companies can maintain employment for these highly skilled technicians, many of whom are based in my electorate.</para>
<para>During a recent visit to cardiologist Dr Bill Petrellis, I had the opportunity to witness firsthand the invaluable work of a cardiac technician, Carolyn. Patients and Dr Petrellis spoke passionately about the importance of having skilled cardiac technicians to support these implanted devices, highlighting how life changing these devices are. Our decision to continue funding for these services in this budget will save lives, and it has saved jobs.</para>
<para>Furthermore, the inclusion of indexation for selected pathology services in the budget is a welcome recognition of the importance of maintaining widespread public access to critical diagnostic services. These services are the backbone of our healthcare system, providing essential diagnostic information that underpins effective treatment. The introduction of a new MBS item for NT-proBNP to aid in diagnosing suspected heart failure brings Australia in line with other jurisdictions, improving the standard of care for many Australians at risk of heart failure. This has the potential to save lives and reduce costs associated with undiagnosed conditions.</para>
<para>Labor created Medicare, Labor protected Medicare, and now Labor will strengthen Medicare.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Listening to the member for Bennelong's speech just then, I feel nothing but how fabulous it must be to be a constituent in the member for Bennelong's electorate with the amount of health care there, the dollars that are spent there and the expertise that is there. But I would point out that that is not the case in regional Australia, and the disparity between healthcare delivery in the regions and our urban centres is so vast, it is no wonder that our mortality and morbidity rates are as high as they are in comparison to an urban setting.</para>
<para>I notice my counterpart here today, the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health. I'm really glad that she's here. She might even be able to answer some of my questions as we move along. In my relatively new role as the shadow assistant minister for regional health, I decided to hold summits and forums wherever I could. These have elicited a vast amount of knowledge from those who are grassroots—those who work, talk the talk and live the walk—healthcare providers in regional settings, and they acknowledge all the difficulties and challenges that are being faced there and the complexity of how difficult these issues are to resolve.</para>
<para>I've been to the north coast of New South Wales, Central Queensland, regional Victoria and also the south of South Australia, in the Riverland. Just recently, I took the deputy opposition leader, David Littleproud, down to the Clarendon Medical Centre in Maryborough, and we talked about how hard it is to get doctors and to bring them into Australia—the hurdles that they need to go through and the barriers that they face in coming to Australia. I think one of the most devastating things that I have heard since doing this role came in a comment from a South African doctor. She is a mother with kids. Her husband is also a doctor, and they were brought out to Australia. She has friends back home in South Africa who are interested in coming to Australia to offer their skills, and she told them: 'Don't do it. Just don't do it. It's too hard.' I think that's an indictment on our entire system and the fact that we need an serious overhaul of our Home Affairs process, the Ahpra process and the colleges processes. I would urge the government to look into that.</para>
<para>I think we will look at the numbers in the short time I have left with regard to some of the reviews that have occurred regarding regional health. We find that the Royal Flying Doctor Service's <inline font-style="italic">B</inline><inline font-style="italic">est </inline><inline font-style="italic">for</inline><inline font-style="italic"> the bush</inline>baseline report shows that in very remote regions people are 2.7 times more likely to die from potentially avoidable causes. Australians living in the nation's most remote areas are likely to die on average 14.3 years earlier than someone in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne. Women, specifically, have a life expectancy gap of 16 years. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has found that those living outside major centres have higher reported rates of chronic diseases, diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure. They have a higher incidence of low-birth-weight babies and poorer antenatal and postnatal care. There's also a greater prevalence of mental health problems. Yet there are 2.7 doctors per 1,000 people in rural and remote compared to 4.3 in the cities. It is not quite twice, but it is a number that ought to shock us.</para>
<para>Labor's expansion of the distribution priority areas, as one of the health minister's decisions, took 56 per cent more doctors out of the regions and put them in outer suburbs. That has created even more of a headache for us out in the regions. In my electorate, 58 per cent of the GPs in my entire electorate, which is over a third of Victoria, are over the age of 55. That bodes really badly when we are not replacing those doctors. The fact is that we're not replacing like for like. My husband is 70 years old. Last week, the week before—a GP looking to retire very shortly. He's not the only one. But he works 70 hours a week, compared to a lot of the younger GPs who are coming through who want to work 30 hours a week and want to manage a work-life balance. I actually don't know what that is, but we need to address the real issues that face our regional communities. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I received this email just yesterday. I changed the names for privacy reasons and brevity:</para>
<quote><para class="block">[My] [f]ather-in-law (age 93) has a heart condition (triple bypass…), he also has lung problems … and needs a walking frame to get around.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In July 2023 he had seizure and in September 2nd 2023 he was approved for a level 3 My Aged Care package. We were told … the waiting time was 3 to 6 months. We were approved for immediate lawn mowing and gardening but when I rang … I was told that there was none available in this area. After about 5 months I was then told that it was 6 to nine months wait when I rang.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In April 2024 I rang again as my Father-in-law had another fall while in the shower … His doctor said that he should have someone with him whenever he has a shower. I again rang my aged care and was given approval for someone to come in 3 days a week to help with the showering. I contacted the provider they said organised all the paperwork and then didn't hear from them again.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… My Aged care rang early in May … they said that the full package would be available within a month</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I rang My Aged Care 28th May as the 9 months was up and was told that the wait is now 12 to 15 months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">During this time he has had several falls. Some of which we had to call the ambulance to get him up.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My wife aged 61 (their Daughter) is their carer …. She has got one frozen shoulder, the other shoulder keeps dislocating, she has Bursitis in both hips and one shoulder and needs to have a knee replacement ….</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have been trying to help her … but I [have had] a double knee replacement, arthritis in most joints and a collapsed vertebrae</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">….</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I was wondering if you could help me find out how we can get some help as I am worried that my wife will end up crippling herself trying to look after her parents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yours faithfully</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">P.S. … about 2.30am this morning he had another fall. Luckily we were able to get him up. We have tried to get a lifter to get him up but cannot find anywhere that we can hire them from and they are too costly to buy. We have been told that we should be able to get one once he has his home care package but that is now another 6 months away.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… we are at the stage where we are not able to get him up and will need to call the ambulance to help get him up when he falls.</para></quote>
<para>My team reached out to this gentleman today. In the intervening day and a half, his father-in-law has been hospitalised. This is just the latest story shared with me. Each one breaks my heart, and what is worse is that, even when I escalate my concerns to the department, to the minister or to the media, we simply do not see any change.</para>
<para>Minister, what modelling has been done on the impact of the 24,100 additional packages promised in this budget on the waiting list for home care, which sat at 51,000 last December and is undoubtedly higher now? What will the impact be on waiting times for home-care packages, noting the level 3 package waiting time has gone from one to three months in February 2023 to now 12 to 15 months in April 2024? Let me repeat that. In February 2023, people were waiting one to three months for a level 3 package; they are now waiting 12 to 15 months for a level 3 package.</para>
<para>Further, based on the waiting list figures for December, how many people does the modelling predict will pass away while they're waiting for a home-care package?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would start by addressing the question from the member for Mayo. It is deeply distressing to hear of any person or family that find themselves in a situation that your constituent did—or their 93-year-old parent. I wish them all the best as they recover in hospital. I can offer you a meeting with the minister, as I understand this is one of a number of cases that you are helping people with in your local community. We will offer you that meeting so you can discuss not only that particular case but also others that you are responding to.</para>
<para>A lot has been said about this budget and more will be written including in today's consideration in detail focus on health and aged care. But at its heart it is a Labor budget. I say that because it is about fairness. In Australia today, where you live and what you can afford largely determines your health and quality of life. The differences are stark and growing. Experts will use terms like 'health outcomes' or 'priority populations' or the 'social determinants of health' but what they are really talking about is fairness.</para>
<para>Forty years ago, before the introduction of Medicare, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in Australia was unpaid health bills. Before the introduction of Medicare, one in seven Australians had no coverage for health bills. That is why Labor introduced Medicare and affordable medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—the PBS as we know it. It is important to remember the Liberals' record on Medicare: tearing it down after it was first introduced as Medibank under Whitlam, opposing its re-establishment as Medicare under Hawke and the disastrous attempts to undermine it in a decade of neglect under the previous government, including when the now Leader of the Opposition was health minister.</para>
<para>We heard earlier from my friend and colleague Dr Mike Freelander, the chair of the aged care and sport committee, an esteemed paediatrician. When I first met Dr Mike, as candidates in the 2016 election, he told me why he was running. He said he didn't want his career to end as it had started, without Medicare, because he had seen the difference Medicare had made to hundreds of children and families over decades in his community in south-west Sydney.</para>
<para>Before coming to this place, I worked for many years at Wyong Hospital in the electorate I now represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales. I was a specialist mental health pharmacist and then later a director of pharmacy. My day-to-day role was part of a team of nurses, social workers, OTs, psychologists and psychiatrists providing care to over 50 in-patients. I saw many people in crisis after they had been brought in by ambulance or police and ended up in seclusion. I also saw our health service discharge people back to the circumstances that made them sick without the crucial support they needed in the community, which is why I am determined in working alongside Minister Mark Butler to reform mental health support and care in Australia, to steer the introduction of Medicare mental health centres and make sure everyone can get access to the help they need when they need it. That is why we are introducing a new national intervention service, establishing 61 Medicare mental health centres, making it easier to access affordable mental health care from GPs, enabling better multidisciplinary care and expanding the mental health workforce.</para>
<para>Our new national early intervention service will provide free high-quality evidence based therapy from trained professionals. We are establishing 61 Medicare mental health centres, where people will be able walk in and get free help, including from a psychologist or psychiatrist on call. These centres, building on the Head to Health model, are designed to remove barriers to care. These centres, the Medicare mental health centres, will be free, they will be walk-in, and people will not need an appointment or a referral to get support and care.</para>
<para>We are also making it easier to access affordable mental health care through general practitioners by allowing GPs to use standard consultation items to review mental health treatment plans and we are enabling better multidisciplinary care for people with severe or complex needs by funding more than 150 mental health nurses, counsellors, social workers and peer workers to provide free care coordination, navigation support and general practice. We know that the success of mental health reform relies on expanding and broadening the workforce. Sometimes the best support comes from someone who has walked in your shoes and lived through a similar experience, which is why we are also creating a new national peer workforce association to mobilise, professionalise and unlock the potential of peer workers.</para>
<para>These reforms to expand free mental health services right across the country alongside our work to strengthen Medicare will ease cost-of-living pressures with cheaper medicines, and will make sure that everyone can get the care they need and deserve.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>163</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you so much, Deputy Speaker Chesters, and may I say how great it is to see you in the chair. I will make a few introductory comments about the budget overall. This is Labor's third budget. It's one that we're incredibly proud of. The budget very clearly is directed at the very obvious No. 1 issue that faces our constituents today, and that is the difficulties in managing the cost of living. In communities like mine in Melbourne's south-east, this is the predominant topic of discussion around the dinner table, at the schoolyard, at sporting events on the weekend and everywhere else where constituents and citizens are getting together.</para>
<para>The budget is designed and tailored to help people who are under really significant pressure right now while setting Australians up for the future. That's why, broadly across the budget, we see that every single taxpayer in our country gets a tax cut. That's why every household gets $300 off their energy bills, and that's why we're investing in A Future Made in Australia. This is also a budget that's going to be very important for delivering border protection for our country. We're investing in a safer, more secure and more resilient Australia, which every citizen in our country deserves.</para>
<para>This was a really big and important budget for the Home Affairs portfolio. What's made clear in the budget papers is that this budget invests $1.2 billion more for Home Affairs and Australian Border Force. That's because the safety and security of the Australian community is core business for us at Home Affairs. It means securing our borders, ensuring the safety of our community and cleaning up a lot of very significant messes that we inherited when we came to government. It also means delivering on a smaller and better targeted migration program, and that's something that I know the immigration minister will want to speak to. What we have here is a real plan. For the first time, our country has a written strategy for our migration system, and it's going to deliver the better quality system that we need. It's going to deliver the smaller migration program that we need, and it's going to deliver it with better planning so that, for example, state governments are better able to plan for housing, schools and hospitals to service a growing population. It also means significant investments in improving economic and social outcomes for migrants, ending those incredible rorts and exploitation that we saw under the approach of the previous government.</para>
<para>I'd like to talk a little bit about the specific funding for border protection in the budget. An additional $569.4 million will boost the capabilities that underpin the principles of safety and security. This includes some very substantial investments in planes, boats and vehicles that our Operation Sovereign Borders personnel rely on to protect the integrity of our borders. This brings the additional investment made by our government—versus what was promised by those opposite—to an extraordinary $1.31 billion. Let me say that again: our government is spending $1.31 billion more on this critical national security task than was promised by those opposite. I can't stand the way some of the debates in my portfolio end up with 'he said, she said' debates across the chamber, so, instead of using my words, I'll use the words of the Commissioner of the Australian Border Force who—even before this budget, based on the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been committed before this budget to Border Force—has said, 'Border Force funding is currently the highest it's been since its establishment.'</para>
<para>Of course, the important work of our department doesn't stop with migration and borders. I want to point out the Albanese government's commitment of $71.6 million in the budget to combat the ever-present threat presented by foreign interference and espionage. The Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, has spoken to parliamentarians and to the Australian public about the fact that foreign interference and espionage have supplanted terrorism as the principal national security concern facing the country. Of course our agencies and our government will always prioritise threats to life. However, he is pointing to what is a very significant and growing problem of foreign interference and espionage. That's why that commitment of $71.6 million was made in the budget.</para>
<para>We also made the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce permanent. This is a unique feature of our approach to foreign interference in this country and something we're very proud of.</para>
<para>There's a lot to say in migration, but I have the immigration minister next to me here, and I know he'll want to speak in detail to those topics and to the issues about migrant economic and social outcomes. I want to commend the budget to the parliament, and I'm keen to hear the debate that ensues.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today's GDP figures really put paid to any sense that the budget is working for Australians. As a matter of fact, today—in five quarters now—we've had a GDP per capita downturn. We have never had five GDP per capita downturns in the last 20 or 30 years. It shows that the budget is, sadly, not working, and it means people's real wages are going down while the cost of insurance, the cost of electricity, the cost of gas and interest rate payments continue to go up and up.</para>
<para>When it comes to the home affairs department, the omnishambles continues. We've seen, through the ministers being referred to on numerous occasions as 'hopeless' and 'hapless', that they are not across their brief at all. And there are serious questions that they need to answer in this debate today, during this consideration in detail. The home affairs minister needs to answer the question: is the ABF's drone fleet still grounded? She won't answer it in question time. She refers to estimates 12 months ago, when they did say it was grounded. It's a simple question. We need to know today, Minister: is the drone fleet still grounded? It's a very, very simple question. And we need to know if it's still grounded because it will help enlighten us a little bit on what the minister for immigration said about drones—he said they were flying above and monitoring the detainees, and then all of a sudden that proved to not be the case. So, that would help us no end.</para>
<para>I'd also like to hear from the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration: will the government's NOM target of 395,000 be met for this financial year? I'd love to hear from the home affairs minister that yes, that 395,000 target will be met. But I don't think we'll hear anything from them on that, because, as we know and as the Australian people know, we are getting nearly a million people coming into this country, during a housing and rental crisis, when people can't see the doctor, when congestion continues to grow in our cities. Yet it would seem that the forecast NOM, which has gone up and up, will continue to go up this financial year. So, will that 395,000 target be met, Minister for Home Affairs or minister for immigration? It would be really good to know the answer to that question.</para>
<para>On ministerial direction 99, which I'm sure the Deputy Speaker has heard about a few times now—I don't think any of us had heard much about ministerial direction 99, but I'm sure she's right across now—I'd like to know: when will it actually come into force? We're hearing that the minister for immigration will sign it sometime this week. What that new ministerial direction will look like, we're very interested to see. I'd then be very interested to know when it will come into force and what it will mean for the AAT in the next four to six weeks that we think it will take for it to come into force. And for the minister's delegate: will they have to continue to use the very flawed ministerial direction 99, which the government has had to walk back from and admit that they got wrong?</para>
<para>Another issue that I would really like to hear from both ministers on is the NZYQ cohort. We have been told in the parliament that they are being continuously monitored. Well, how? How is that continuous monitoring actually taking place? Can either minister confirm: when the roughly 25 per cent—or it might have been a little less—of those who have been released reoffended, were they being continuously monitored when they reoffended, and, if so, how were they being continuously monitored when they reoffended? I think the Australian people would dearly love an answer to that question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In this budget, the Albanese government is investing in a safe, secure and resilient future for the entire Australian community. As my colleague and friend Minister O'Neil has spoken about, many of the funding measures and programs in the Home Affairs portfolio are directed at these ends. In my remarks I want to focus in particular on three parts of this budget. The first one is improving economic and social outcomes for migrants.</para>
<para>The Albanese government will be investing $120.9 million from next financial year on a number of proven programs to deliver better economic and social outcomes for refugees—a matter that I know is of keen interest to you, Deputy Speaker Chesters. This funding includes $86.6 million to improve the sustainability of settlement services, which have been under so much pressure for so long, and $27 million to extend successful programs, including the Youth Transition Support program and support for refugee and migrant women who have been experiencing domestic and family violence. These are all critical programs to support new people who are coming to Australia, often in very difficult circumstances, and these investments will deliver a real dividend.</para>
<para>Additional measures will include conversational English classes in community hubs and further support for the Community Refugee Education and Settlement Pilot, supporting the government's commitments on complementary protection. These investments ensure newly resettled refugees in Australia are provided with the support they need to succeed and thrive in our communities.</para>
<para>The government will also provide additional funding of $15 million for an information and education package to help combat migrant worker exploitation. This builds on our strong agenda more broadly of protecting vulnerable migrant workers who speak out and cracking down on those rogue employers who do the wrong thing and seek to profit by that. Our tough new laws, cracking down on these employers who do the wrong thing, passed the parliament recently.</para>
<para>As outlined in the Migration Strategy, the temporary skilled migration income threshold will be indexed on 1 July, further increasing wages for both Australians and workers holding temporary skilled visas. The figure will be $73,150. After a decade of the former government deliberately holding down wages by refusing to index the TSMIT, I'm so proud to be ensuring that wages are moving again in Australia—and to say to the shadow minister, of course, that real wages are going up right now under our economic management and our plan to secure better living standards for all Australians.</para>
<para>I firmly believe that the best way to tackle exploitation is to ensure people being mistreated can speak up. That's why I'm looking forward to introducing new rules in the coming months so that people with temporary visas don't need to worry about losing that status and can speak freely.</para>
<para>In the time available to me I want to highlight a couple of additional matters. One of them is the progress being made in addressing shortages in the aged-care sector. First and foremost, salaries have increased substantially following the decision of the Fair Work Commission to increase wages and the Albanese government's historic commitment to increase funding for these hardworking—predominantly—women. To complement this, the Albanese government has introduced the Aged Care Industry Labour Agreement. This is the first tripartite labour agreement where business, unions and government are working together to address workforce shortages in a collaborative manner in the national interest.</para>
<para>Under Labor, I'm pleased to say, almost 70 agreements have been struck with aged-care providers who've signed memoranda of understanding. In the little over a year since the agreement was launched, this has resulted in about 1,000 visa applications being lodged, with many more to come. For these aged-care providers, there's the ability to sponsor up to 22,000 workers over the next five years, should we need the workforce to care for those Australians. This is in stark contrast to measures under the former government. The then minister, Minister Coleman, announced in early 2019 that aged-care providers could apply for labour agreements, and a grand total of seven such agreements were struck until May 2022. Those agreements covered fewer than 200 visas.</para>
<para>More broadly, we've slashed waiting times from months to days for essential workers, reducing uncertainty. I really want to touch on the contribution of essential workers in health care, education and construction. They are so essential to everyday lives and to the functioning of our economy: the houses we live in, the care for our family, the education for our future. That's why I'm so proud that our government has focused on ensuring visas for these workers, including over 10,500 workers in construction, broadly double the number previously. This year, we're on track to match these figures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My questions are for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Firstly, how many noncitizens whose visa cancellations have been overturned by AAT under ministerial direction 99 had previous criminal convictions or allegations of criminal conduct or serious conduct involving family and domestic violence, sexual assault or offences relating to children? Secondly, subject to the decision made by the AAT to revoke a visa cancellation pursuant to ministerial direction 99, how many noncitizens since the relevant decision have committed or have been alleged to have committed criminal offences or serious conduct involving family and domestic violence, sexual assaults or offences relating to children? Thirdly, how many of these noncitizens have now had their visas cancelled?</para>
<para>We all, in this House, know that right now there is a national crisis happening, and that is a crisis in relation to gender based violence. This budget contains $3.2 billion to address domestic violence for women and children. An additional $1.1 billion is provided for the ongoing escaping domestic violence payment. We are all working together to address domestic violence. So, in dealing with convicted rapist or a person who bashes, stalks, intimidates or threatens a woman, in what parallel universe would their ties to Australia or the time they've been here be given equal weight to the protection of a victim? Why would their rights be given the same weight in the AAT under ministerial direction 99?</para>
<para>I say to the minister: sit down with a victim. I've done it plenty of times; I've had 12 years in the police. The moment that a rapist or somebody who bashes a woman or somebody who assaults a young child is convicted, they forfeit their rights to be here if they are noncitizens. Their rights should not be given equal weight to the rights of the victim. The victims' rights were taken away when these scumbags committed those offences. For the minister to include in ministerial direction 99 rights for paedophiles, rapists and men who bash women and children that are equal to the rights of victims just goes to show that he doesn't get it.</para>
<para>But he said he's going to change it. Well, how long is that going to take, and what will that look like? Will the rights of the victims be greater than those of these scumbags who have been protected and released under his ministerial direction 99? The Australian public are outraged, and they should be outraged. They should have the answers to these questions, and the rights of those victims need to come over and above the rights of somebody who is a noncitizen of this country. These people have suffered at the hands of these perpetrators, but these offenders have been given the benefit of freedom and citizenship under ministerial direction 99. It is outrageous, and Australian citizens should be outraged. This minister is a woeful, hapless minister who should step down, because time after time he has bungled the legislation, the bills and the ministerial directions. He has been unfit and unable to carry out his duties as the minister for immigration in protecting the citizens of Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the new interest from those opposite in community safety, because they were found wanting when they were in government. In contrast, think about what we are doing on this side of the House compared to what they did when they were in government. On this side of the House, we are cleaning up the mess in the immigration system that we were left with by those opposite. Under the Leader of the Opposition's watch, nearly 1,300 serious criminals were released. What's worse is that he oversaw an immigration system that was described by Christine Nixon, who conducted a review into the system, as having an 'almost industrial-scale' exploitation of vulnerable temporary migrants.</para>
<para>I want to tell everyone in this House just how bad it got. Those opposite cut the number of immigration compliance staff, which resulted in known sex traffickers entering our country. These are people who had committed serious crimes overseas and were jailed for that. We knew about it, and they were allowed into this country. One of them, Binjun Xie, lived in my electorate. He was convicted and jailed in the UK for sex trafficking and, despite his very serious criminal record, he was allowed into this country to run another illegal sex ring, exploiting vulnerable women. So I welcome the interest from those opposite in protecting women, but where were they when they allowed Binjun Xie into this country? He arrived in 2014 with a student visa, and who was immigration minister then? Depending on when he came during that year, it was either the former Prime Minister or the current Leader of the Opposition, two members of parliament who love to cultivate a tough-guy image—tough cop on the beat. Well, they've been exposed as the chihuahuas of the Australian parliament: all bark, no bite. I want to remind you of what the former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Christine Nixon, said when she conducted the review into this immigration system. She said that there were 'grotesque abuses' of temporary migrant workers.</para>
<para>So Binjun Xie was allowed to operate his illegal sex ring for years and years. What finally stopped it? When we came into government, we had the home affairs minister and the immigration minister finally stop the criminal activity that was taking place in this country, and we deported him. He is just one of several crime syndicate figures who exploited a migration system that was riddled with holes. The UK detective who investigated and helped to jail Binjun Xie said he was shocked Australia allowed him to enter this country. This is what he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm flabbergasted that he's able to get into Australia, bearing in mind that he was jailed here—</para></quote>
<para>in the UK—</para>
<quote><para class="block">for five years with a condition that he was deported back to China upon his release.</para></quote>
<para>Instead of staying in China, he was allowed into this country.</para>
<para>Let's remember what those opposite did when they were responsible for the government departments that were processing visas: they absolutely gutted those departments. Between 2015 and 2022, as onshore protection claims went through the roof, the number of visa processing staff shrank by a third. During their nine years in power, the immigration compliance team was halved. That resulted in gaping holes in the migration system.</para>
<para>Thankfully, we now have a Minister for Home Affairs and an immigration minister who are cleaning up the mess that those opposite left behind—filling those holes; closing those gaps. We have established a permanent strike force which will address problems as we find them, instead of ignoring them. We've doubled the department's resources. Instead of cutting staff, we've increased staff so that they can do those compliance checks. And we are imposing penalties on migration agents who are involved in misconduct. We are providing record investment to keep our borders safe. As the Australian Border Force Commissioner has said, Border Force funding is currently the highest it has been since its establishment.</para>
<para>So the contrast between two approaches, when it comes to migration, could not be more stark. They had gaping holes in their migration system and ignored them. We are reforming the system and putting Australia's national interest at the heart of it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My first series of questions go to the Minister for Home Affairs, so I'm thankful that she's in the chamber today. Will the home affairs minister confirm whether it's government policy to amend the ASIO Act or any other provisions, any other laws, to remove the government's power to seek compulsory questioning warrants for juveniles? Secondly, has the home affairs minister met with the Director-General of Security to discuss the removal of this power, and, if so, when did they meet? Thirdly, did the home affairs minister suggest to the Director-General of Security that these powers were no longer required?</para>
<para>My next series of questions go to the immigration minister. We've all heard so much about direction 99. I'm not sure that, since section 44 of the Constitution, we've heard so much about a particular provision. But we are all familiar with it now. We know that, on 23 January 2023, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs signed into existence ministerial direction 99, which provided new guidance when considering visas cancelled under the character test of the Migration Act.</para>
<para>How did this come about? We all know that it came about because certain discussions were held between the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of New Zealand.</para>
<para>New Zealand is a good friend to Australia, but one thing they did not like was the coalition's policy that if you are a noncitizen of Australia and you break the law, then you will be deported. Well, that's how it used to be, when the coalition was in government: you would be deported.</para>
<para>As we all know, there are a lot of Kiwis who live in Australia, so New Zealand is perhaps disproportionately affected by those provisions. I'm not suggesting that New Zealanders are in any way more recidivist or prone to crime than any other group of individuals. But the reality is: we have a lot of New Zealand citizens in Australia, and the law of maths will say that they will fall foul of the law more than anyone else.</para>
<para>So, under the coalition, we unashamedly made it so that if you broke the law and it was a serious offence then you would be deported. Jacinda Ardern had discussions with the Australian Prime Minister. Clearly, New Zealand did not like this law. They didn't like it when we were in government, but they thought that they would get a better response—and they did. Clearly, they did, because this prime minister caved. We all heard and saw Minister Giles throw himself on top of the grenade in parliament, in question time a couple of days ago—it may even have been Monday—where he said, 'It was all my idea,' but, clearly, he would have been acting on instructions from the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Whether the minister drafted this direction 99 or whether it came from above, it doesn't really matter. The reality is that the immigration minister is responsible. Once upon a time we used to have this concept in our parliamentary democracy called ministerial accountability. Do you remember that? Ministerial accountability means the minister is responsible for his or her department. That's our Westminster system. These days, under this mob, no-one seems to care about ministerial accountability. This minister continues to blame everybody, everything; he continues to throw his department under the bus. 'It wasn't me.' 'The dog ate my homework.' At some stage, the music is going to stop. At some stage you would think that this minister would say, 'I have brought my government into such disrepute I'm going to fall on my sword and resign.' If he doesn't resign then he should be sacked. My question is: how many appeals has the minister instituted in the Federal Court— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The world in which we live is incredibly and deeply connected. This brings opportunities, but also additional issues that we must, as a government, consider carefully. Tackling the growing threat of foreign interference is one such threat.</para>
<para>By investing over $71 million to tackle this, our government's ability to prosecute and deter foreign interference is greatly enhanced. Through investments in counterintelligence we help build and maintain systems that will protect Australians from potential acts of espionage and foreign interference. It is through these kinds of investments that we can ensure that the future of Australia is safe and secure, an outcome I'm sure is hoped for by all. We do this to protect our democracy. We do this because Australia is one of the most resilient, prosperous and democratic countries in the world, and we must make sure we are protecting it to the best of our ability.</para>
<para>We know that threats to Australians' data is an urgent national problem and we need to act now. Cybersecurity touches the lives of every Australian and, on average, one cybercrime is reported every six minutes, with ransomware alone causing up to $3 billion in damage to the Australian economy every year. This is a massive drain on Australians, and we must do all that we can to ensure we are safe as we see technology advance at a rapid rate.</para>
<para>As we protect Australians and our democracy, we must also remember the values that make us stronger and more united. Australia is a multicultural country. We need a system that is built to ensure that people are not only treated fairly, but provided with support as they settle into our great country. Through programs delivered by the Australian government, new migrants are supported when they arrive so that they are able to thrive.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government will always look at ways to improve Australia's migration system because we know that, by attracting migrants from around the world with an ongoing focus on skilled migration, we create jobs and drive productivity. Our government will invest $120.9 million from 2024-25 on a number of proven programs to deliver better economic and social outcomes for refugees. This funding includes $86.6 million to improve the sustainability of settlement services and $27 million to extend successful programs, including the Youth Transition Support program and support for refugee and migrant women experiencing domestic and family violence so they know what their rights are and where they stand in the law.</para>
<para>Our government will also provide additional funding of $15 million for an information and education package to combat migrant worker exploitation, building on our strong agenda of protecting vulnerable migrant workers who speak out and cracking down on employers who do the wrong thing. Additional measures for migrants include conversational English language classes in community hubs and further support for the Community Refugee Integration and Settlement Pilot, supporting the government's commitment on complementary protection.</para>
<para>These investments ensure newly resettled refuges in Australia are provided with the support they need to succeed in the community. When governments support, protect and nurture those newly arrived migrants and refugees, a country benefits immensely. History has always proven this. Look at how Australia benefited from the Fraser government's decision to take in refugees from Vietnam in the 1970s and how so many have thrived and succeeded in the 4½ decades since. It has made us as a country.</para>
<para>These programs are about building social cohesion, because we know that when we come together as a country we are stronger for it. The migration system we inherited was completely broken, and our goal is to build a better planned, more strategic migration system that works for Australia. National security and social cohesion go hand in glove, and it is not a political plaything for our government. Building and investing in Australia's future is what our government is all about, and we're getting on with the job of that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start with a question to the immigration minister, which I think my colleague the member for Fisher was not quite able to get on record. It was to the minister. Could he outline how many cases or decisions of the AAT on visa matters has he appealed to the Federal Court? Because I note, as the member for Fisher has, that the minister has at times chosen to comment, when the AAT has made a decision, that it's not his fault. He's even made disparaging comments about the appointment of members to the AAT and suggested certain things about their decision-making. So if he's been dissatisfied with any AAT decisions, I'm sure he would have appealed against them to the Federal Court. I'd certainly start with this question to him: could he please inform us how many AAT decisions on these visa matters he's appealed to the Federal Court and/or beyond? That would be much appreciated.</para>
<para>He's also been good at blaming his department for a variety of issues in recent days. The most eye-catching was the initial claim he made about the monitoring of released detainees by way of drones, which I think was subsequently proved to be incorrect. He's then advised publicly that that was because his department inaccurately advised him. I suppose I've got questions to him about the drone program that his department runs and when he was advised that that drone program was monitoring these released detainees. I'm interested in whether he inquired of them at that point, given he believed it to be the case, as to whether or not that was the most efficient way of monitoring concerning released individuals and what the cost would be to undertake drone monitoring of a variety of released detainees compared to the more standard and conventional ankle bracelet monitoring that, it turns out, wasn't in place in this case. I'd appreciate the minister elaborating on that and the cost of monitoring individuals by drone—if that is something that the department does consider doing as a matter of course. It turns out it didn't in the cases that he claimed it had.</para>
<para>He's also been good at blaming the High Court for the NZYQ decision and the subsequent need to release a large cohort of detainees. There's an indication that it's cost about $250 million to provide the various monitoring of those released detainees subsequent to the High Court decision, and the budget certainly covers further resources for that. It would be good if the minister could break that $250 million down and explain what it's being used for, because it's not for drones, as he's conceded, and that same cohort aren't wearing ankle bracelets or what have you. The $250 million is $7 million or $8 million a person. If he could indicate what that money is being spent on now that we know what it's not being spent on, we would appreciate that. Did any of that cost potentially reach the velocity that it did because he and his department simply weren't prepared for that decision whatsoever? He and his department seemed to be caught off guard, despite, I think, Justice Gleeson—from memory—giving some comments during that trial that led to that judgement, which did foreshadow the potential for that circumstance to arise. How prepared was he and his department for that? For that $250 million cost, if that is what it was, could he outline to us and break down what it was spent on. Would some of that money not needed to have been incurred if he and his department had better anticipated that circumstance and those costs?</para>
<para>We're certainly very concerned about the ongoing fallout from both direction 99 and the High Court NZYQ decision and, in the context of consideration in detail here, the cost to the taxpayer on top of the fear in the community and the actual impact on people that have been victims of these released detainees and those that didn't go where they should have because of direction 99. The budgetary implication of that is also something we would appreciate the minister addressing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question for the minister is: how is the government ensuring we are better prepared to face bushfire in the next high-risk weather season? I ask this because I live in the Perth Hills surrounded by the Beelu forest and, due to the effects of climate change, the risk of fire in some parts of Australia is elevated. The south-west of the country—of Western Australia, in particular—over at least the past 30 years has been experiencing a drying climate. The region includes about 92 per cent of Western Australia's population. These challenges are shared across the south-west and are felt most keenly by people who live in my electorate across the hills and in the forests of the region. Some of us have sadly also experienced losing a house to fire. My husband and I and 37 other families lost our home in the Toodyay fires in 2009. More recently, in Wooroloo in 2021, 86 homes were lost across the community. We neither wish to repeat this experience nor want anyone else to have to experience it.</para>
<para>In the face of the growing environmental challenges and the high risk of fire in my electorate, I did organise recently a disaster resilience and adaption forum in Mundaring. We provided information and advice to over 100 people who attended to hear about how they could improve their resilience to storms and bushfires and also access insurance savings. We had presenters from: Natural Hazards Research Australia—funded by the federal government; Telstra; the NBN; the Resilient Building Council, which has a wonderful app now that people can access to learn how to mitigate and lower their risk; insurers; and the Western Australian state government. The event was really well received, with many electors from my community grateful to obtain the tools that they need to increase their own household resilience.</para>
<para>Attendees also took comfort in the fact that the government's researchers and service providers are all working towards a common goal: to make our communities safer. The first duty of government is to provide security. Security in relation to bushfire requires the federal government to take a coordinating and support role where appropriate, to marshal its resources in a consistent and useful manner and to work in concert with the states, who do have the primary responsibility to meet the needs of bushfire preparedness, emergency response and disaster recovery in a timely manner.</para>
<para>Prior to the election of the Albanese government, we had a coalition government that couldn't even hold a hose. No single Commonwealth department had overall emergency management authority. Moreover, they allowed the federal funding of the National Aerial Firefighting Centre to slide to a mere 23 per cent by 2017, with the states left to pick up the rest. By 2019, as we know, the country was on fire. Across Australia, there were 34 fatalities and over 3½ thousand homes lost. Following black summer, the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, which reported in October 2020, recommended a greater role for the federal government and in chapter 8 stressed the need for a sovereign aerial firefighting capability.</para>
<para>The Albanese government, under the leadership of Minister Watt, has acted. We have established NEMA, the National Emergency Management Agency, bringing together the functions of Emergency Management Australia and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. We have provided additional funding to support the work of NEMA—$188.2 million over four years and indicative ongoing funding of $48.2 million thereafter.</para>
<para>We acknowledge that emergency management needs a secure footing as an enduring entity so we can plan for the challenges of the future as well as those in the present. These provisions afford certainty to NEMA and also demonstrate the government's commitment to reducing risk and bringing about systemic change in the way we prepare for and respond to emergencies such as bushfires. We have provided more funding for a review this year into Australia's national firefighting fleet requirements with a view to creating a fleet that is capable, cost-effective and adaptable for use not only in firefighting but also in other emergency situations too. Without waiting for that review, the budget already sees increased funding for the national aerial capability by $35.1 million over the next two years, bringing the total annual funding over that period to about $50 million.</para>
<para>In addition, the government has injected extra funding into the National Emergency Management Stockpile with funding of over $26 million over the next three years, with an independent review expected again in 2026. This commitment to preparedness is matched by mitigation, with our support of initiatives through the Disaster Ready Fund. Examples include fire breaks, business cases to develop infrastructure investigation planning and many others that demonstrate our commitment to keeping our community safe while being mindful of climate change and its effects and being prepared for the future.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>170</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government's budget provides real cost-of-living relief for all Australians. Whether it is a tax cut for every taxpayer or the $300 in energy relief, we understand people are doing it tough. Our budget also specifically includes very targeted support for pensioners and for income support recipients and, of course, this builds on our previous budgets as well. We know people are doing it tough and facing those cost-of-living pressures, and we know how important it is to deliver these important changes. It really shows that our government will also do what we can do to boost workforce participation, address disadvantage and provide much-needed support to many in our community.</para>
<para>I want to outline a few of those issues today. There are many but I will certainly go through a number of them. When it comes to paid parental leave, we will be investing $1.1 billion to pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave. This is another step, a really important step, towards gender equality. As we know, the majority of paid parental leave recipients are women who are more likely to have lower superannuation balances. We know that paid parental leave is good for families, especially for women, and it is very good for the economy as well, so we are very proud to be delivering on that initiative.</para>
<para>Another measure in the budget is the increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. We will be increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 10 per cent, with close to one million households set to benefit. We know how important that is, and, since our government was elected in May 2022, maximum rates of Commonwealth rent is have increased by 42 per cent when combined with indexation.</para>
<para>There are some really important changes to carer payment participation rules. The budget has really reinforced our commitment to Australia's more than two million carers by ensuring that, if they want to work, study or volunteer, they can do so with flexibility. We will change the 25 hours-per-week participation rule for carer payment recipients to allow instead up to 100 hours over a four-week period and remove restrictions on studying and volunteering activities.</para>
<para>To assist with the cost-of-living pressures, again, for those that are struggling, we are extending the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single recipients who have a partial capacity to work up to 14 hours a week. We know that, for those on JobSeeker payments who have being unable to work because of a whole series of impairments or injuries, it is a barrier for them to return to employment. Since our government was elected, the rate of JobSeeker base payment has increased by $120 per fortnight.</para>
<para>Another very important measure in this budget is deeming rates, an issue that we all hear about all the time, and the need to make sure we act. We are. Our government will be freezing social security deeming rates for a further 12 months to 30 June 2025. More than 870,000 current income support recipients will benefit, including 450,000 age pensioners. That will make a huge difference to them.</para>
<para>Importantly, this budget delivers on a whole range of women's safety initiatives. All of us in this parliament are committed to ending violence against women and children in one generation, and this budget again reaffirms our commitment to that. We all know about the extent—and feel distress about the level—of domestic violence that we are seeing throughout the country. It is at epidemic proportions. We know that financial barriers are often a huge impediment to victim-survivors being able to leave a violent relationship, and we're working very hard to reduce those barriers. That's what we saw in the budget. We're investing over $925 million over five years to permanently establish the Leaving Violence Program. This supports those victim-survivors of intimate partner violence as they are making decisions about leaving those violent relationships and in being able to access the help that they need. In this case, they can access up to $5,000 in financial support along with referral services, risk assessments and safety planning. We estimate that the Leaving Violence Program will support over 36,000 victim-survivors each year.</para>
<para>We also saw some more measures in the budget—the expert group who will lead a rapid review to advise the government on additional efforts to prevent and end the cycle of violence, and an investment of $4 million for ANROWS for a rapid review. Of course, all of these new measures support all of those aims in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. It brings our total investment in women's safety since coming into government to $3.4 billion, which includes funding for the states, for frontline services and for more workers as well. I know that everyone in this House stands with me in wanting to make sure that we eliminate violence against women and children in one generation.</para>
<para>Overall, this budget delivers for all Australians. It targets cost of living and has taken many steps to address disadvantage and boost workforce participation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've seen this week some pretty remarkable revelations out of Senate estimates in relation to a major part of this portfolio—the NDIS. It's troubling that the minister is not here, but I will ask questions of the assistant minister to feed through to the minister for the NDIS, who, let's be frank, has a lot to answer for. This week alone we've seen that Australian taxpayers are funding an NDIS which is now being used to pay for drugs, as was outlined in Senate Estimates by the agency itself. Heroin, cocaine, narcotics—essentially, you name the drug, and it's on the list. That was the evidence that was given. This follows revelations that we saw in the past, of the NDIS being used for the procurement of prostitutes and of recently released prisoners using it to harass care workers within the NDIS. All of these problems are seemingly getting worse on the watch of the minister.</para>
<para>Let's recall that the minister came to government saying that the NDIS was tracking just as predicted, that anybody who spoke about sustainability within the NDIS was opposed to the scheme and that it was improper to raise those questions. In fact, the immortal quote from the then shadow minister for the NDIS was, 'You can't walk down a hall of parliament without a Liberal politician talking about the sustainability of the NDIS, and I'm here to tell you that that's a lie.' Well, all we've heard from the minister since then is that the NDIS has sustainability issues. In fact, he has spent his time trying to make an argument against himself, when he said in opposition that the scheme was entirely sustainable. Now, clearly, the NDIS is going to have sustainability issues if you've got a minister who can't control it and if you've got money going out the door for drugs, prostitutes and—to name a couple of others—a $73,000 car, holidays, and, to be frank, God knows what else. The agency itself said that up to $2 billion per year is being wasted on those things. I suspect that that's a fairly conservative figure. I suspect it's much worse.</para>
<para>There are a range of questions that the minister needs to answer: Why, on his watch and with his hand-picked CEO out of the Andrews Labor Victorian government, are these things being allowed to happen? Why are Australian taxpayers, who support the NDIS in good faith, being asked to fund a program which is being utilised for drugs and prostitutes? Can the minister now level with the Australian public: does he believe the scheme is sustainable or not? He seems to dodge that question.</para>
<para>How many NDIS participants have had their funds slashed, notwithstanding the fact that this government and minister went to the election saying that no plan would go backwards and that there were no sustainability issues? Why have plan-review wait times more than doubled since this minister has been in government and since his hand-picked CEO has been administering the scheme? How much cash is in the pay system that has seen a blowout of review wait times for NDIS plans? Why are we consistently hearing—it continues to this day—active review cases taking as long as six months, if not longer, to be resolved? Will the minister reinstate monthly summary reports, which were brought in by the former coalition government? What information is the minister trying to hide by removing these monthly reports?</para>
<para>Can the minister outline how on earth the government's going to meet its eight per cent growth cap when, at the first hurdle, it seems as though that growth cap is going to be missed? We saw that in the most recent budget, of which we're speaking about now. We're sadly seeing a scheme which is being totally rorted and misused and a government that's seemingly hapless in its ability to ensure that every dollar goes where it should—to people with disabilities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll give the previous speaker a hot tip: as you acknowledge, this is a big portfolio with multiple ministers. You went off a bit early because Minister Shorten, I understand, will be here shortly.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Deakin was heard in silence. He will give the same respect to the others present.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed. I was simply informing the member that the minister will be here in due course, because this is a big portfolio, and there are multiple ministers. So you went off a bit early. It is disappointing, though, listening to that. I want to talk about disability employment services, but I'll just make this point: the member well knows, given he was the Assistant Treasurer for that brief glorious time, that the NDIS is not sustainable without reform. That's a publicly stated fact. The trajectory which we were on as a country—and this should be a bipartisan issue—was to see over a million Australians on the NDIS by 2032 spending more than $100 billion. That's what we inherited. In the House, your leader, your shadow minister and you say that you want to work with the government on a bipartisan basis to fix up the problems and that you'll vote for the legislation. Then you come in here, the place where good speeches go to die in your case, and want to have a sledge and make snide digs. I think you need to go and have a good hard conversation with yourself and decide whether you actually mean what you say in the House—that you want to work with the government to fix the scheme and get it refocused on people with a permanent and significant disability—or whether you want to mean what you say in here. You can't have it both ways.</para>
<para>One in six Australians have a disability, and they should be reflected in our workforce and workplaces, but they're not. People with a disability want to and have a right to dignified work, and we pledged in the election to tackle job insecurity, wages and skills. We pledged in the employment white paper <inline font-style="italic">Working future</inline> to reform employment services. I'm delighted to see those commitments to reform the disability employment services reflected in this budget. There's an extra $227 million for DES, which will help people prepare for and find suitable employment. There's $23 million allocated for the Disability Employment Centre of Excellence.</para>
<para>I want to commend the minister, though, on a couple of aspects—in particular, on the minister's personal commitment, which flows through in this budget, to service quality. It is astounding that when the minister came into the portfolio—many of us are interested in this—the previous government had no quality framework. I chaired the Workforce Australia Employment Services Select Committee, and we saw this. When you want to marketise services, as has happened for a range of reasons—some of them good, some of them not so good—in social services, in human services, you have to have a view, as the public sector, as a government, as to what a quality service is. Otherwise, it's just like <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he Hunger Games</inline>: you've got a whole lot of providers, and they're just relatively good or relatively bad. You can't sustain the ideology of the former government, where you just privatise stuff and sit and watch and see what happens. So, the minister's commitment to a quality framework, to listening to service users so that we actually have some idea as a country as to whether an individual service is meeting the benchmark—not just kind of relative degrees of performance—is critical.</para>
<para>I also commend the minister on the commitment to restore the role of specialist service providers, to exercise greater market stewardship. Providers will be engaged through a procurement process rather than a grants agreement. And it's just profoundly weird that you'd engage people for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in critical services through a series of grants, because the public sector doesn't have the flexibility to deal with problems when they emerge. So, that's a boring, arcane but critically important shift to improve service quality.</para>
<para>And, frankly, specialist providers are not that specialist. The previous government's ideology of privatisation was to let people profiteer, let the market rip. Let's be really clear: governments create this market, and they have to exercise active market stewardship. We've seen in too many regions a couple of big providers with deep pockets effectively buy market share with loss leaders, setting up offices everywhere, and close down the small providers. That's not a good deal for people with a disability who need a specialist provider who might specialise in their particular disability. So, I commend the minister on the budget initiatives around that, and on introducing more controls over market entry. The changes towards a focus on meaningful engagement of participants with their provider to cut back the number of pointless payment suspensions—which corrupt and demoralise participants, actually make people less employable, and hurt the relationship between a skilled worker and consultant and the participant—are absolutely welcome. The higher-value wage subsidies, as well as showing leadership in disability employment through the centre of excellence, are terrific initiatives.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting that the member for Bruce wants to congratulate the minister on service standards, yet wait times have doubled. So, congratulations to the minister: wait times have doubled. So, Australians who have genuine disabilities, and their families, are waiting twice as long, and the member for Bruce is congratulating the minister. Meanwhile, while they're waiting, there are people who are using the NDIS for drugs and prostitution.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd ask the member for Bruce to restrain himself.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's why the illustrious career of the member for Bruce has stagnated on the backbench—because he can't control himself when he's not in his seat.</para>
<para>Secondly, the member for Bruce, in another glaring error, said, well, of course we all agree that there are sustainability issues with the NDIS. Clearly he didn't get the talking points from the minister, because the minister was quoted before the election as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>That was the now minister for the NDIS, as shadow minister. That's one of two things ultimately: either he was deceiving the Australia people before the election, or he was ignorant at that time, and once he became the minister he realised that the coalition was right in trying to get the NDIS back on a sustainable footing. But I digress. I just wanted to address two of the very spurious points made by the low-altitude-flying member for Bruce.</para>
<para>Moving on to another aspect of the social services portfolio, an issue we have spoken about consistently, probably since the first sitting of parliament, is the lamentable decision by this government to abolish the cashless debit card. At that time we in fact pleaded with the government: 'Do not do this. Do not abolish the cashless debit card.' You don't need to be a professor, you don't need to be a genius, you don't need to be a surgeon to realise that if you put more drugs and alcohol onto the streets of vulnerable communities there will be very bad outcomes.</para>
<para>The assistant minister, who's a very good assistant minister, talks about reducing domestic violence. How on earth is abolishing the cashless debit card—which we know has led to a spike in a range of violent behaviours, including domestic violence and antisocial behaviour—consistent with that very noble and, I'm sure, consistent view on that side of the House? They have taken away a card that was working for communities that asked for it, communities that did not have it introduced against their will but by and large supported its introduction. We've seen the sad consequences of this decision in Ceduna and in WA. We've seen violence and antisocial behaviour spike. We've seen public drunkenness go through the roof, we've seen a succession of media reports and we've seen a succession of community leaders in those communities say—again, I'm not claiming to be particularly intelligent—that if you put more drugs and alcohol on the street, there's going to be a bad outcome for those communities.</para>
<para>It's never too late to reverse course when you make a bad decision. In the end, in government, you sometimes have to swallow your pride. The truth is: there will be families, women and children increasingly suffering violence because there are more drugs and alcohol in those communities as a result of the decision taken by this government to abolish the cashless debit card.</para>
<para>If you're genuine about wanting to abolish domestic violence, and not just in our major capital cities, you have to want to abolish domestic violence in those communities that don't get the media and don't have lobbyists walking around the halls of parliament. They are the communities that are being ignored here. So I ask the minister: Is the government reconsidering abolishing the cashless debit card? Will it agree with the communities that are crying out for this card to be reintroduced? Will it accept the folly of that decision and reverse course to save women and children in those communities? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that people are doing it tough. That is why the Albanese Labor government is increasing funding to support Australians in financial distress and build financial resilience over the long term.</para>
<para>This budget provides around $23 million over four years and ongoing funding to strengthen precrisis and early intervention support. This is in addition to the significant investments that we have already made since coming to government. From day one we have been making investing in frontline services a priority. With bill shock, cost-of-living pressures and natural disasters hitting almost every Australian at some point, we know that more people are experiencing financial distress, which is putting pressure on services that are already struggling to meet demand.</para>
<para>In January, the Minister for Social Services announced an additional $114.8 million over five years to assist frontline services such as emergency relief, food relief and financial counselling to meet this increased demand. This funding makes a real difference to areas like the Illawarra, which has endured two severe flood events in the past 18 months.</para>
<para>The budget also references an expansion of the food relief program from 1 July 2025. This expansion will encompass material aid and enable local service footprints to address service gaps, particularly in regional and remote areas. This will make a real difference to organisations like Good360, which the assistant minister visited. Good360 helps businesses donate their excess or unsold non-perishable goods to charities and vulnerable people across the country. These goods include clothing, personal care products, toys, electronics, whitegoods, furniture and so much more. Good360 is run by two amazing women from Woonona, which is where I grew up. They are founder and managing director Alison Covington AM and head of philanthropy Susan Wallis, my very good friend. I'm so fortunate to have Good360 operating in my electorate. I thank them again for their donations, totalling over $27,000 of material aid last year, to my annual community dinner in support of the Wollongong Homeless Hub. In addition to the expansion of food relief, data and evaluation activities, including on-the-ground surveys, this will help provide a clearer picture of unmet demand, such as waiting lists for services and client turnaway rates.</para>
<para>Strengthening frontline services and support for those in crisis has been a key focus for the minister and for our government, but it is also really important to build longer term financial capability and resilience to prevent people from reaching crisis points in the first place. There is a clear need for cohesive investment along the chain of support, from prevention and early intervention through to response and recovery. To ensure reliability, from 1 July 2025 we will restructure our financial wellbeing programs to operate under two streams: financial capability and resilience, and financial crisis response and recovery. To this end, the budget provides ongoing funding for several successful pre-crisis and early intervention programs.</para>
<para>The National Debt Helpline will receive an additional $1.6 million each year to enable the ongoing operation of the appointment booking system and the live webchat function. This system allows the helpline to triage clients and book directly with a financial counsellor on their behalf. For the client, this simplifies the process and reduces the stress of having to call multiple financial counselling organisations to get an appointment and risk not getting connected with support. Good Shepherd will receive $6.3 million over three years for the ongoing operation of the No Interest Loans Scheme for vehicles. This program helps vulnerable people needing to purchase a vehicle for essential use. We know this support is particularly important for women impacted by family and domestic violence, who currently make up around 12 per cent of applicants.</para>
<para>On 25 May I attended the One Voice Illawarra march, run by Women Illawarra, the Illawarra Women's Health Centre and Healthier Illawarra Men. I spoke with our community and our frontline staff about their needs and experiences. Addressing family and domestic violence is a priority for our government, and we are acting. The Albanese Labor government announced we will invest almost $1 billion over five years to permanently establish the Leaving Violence Program. We know that financial insecurity is just one barrier to escaping violence, and I commend the minister for the measures in the budget.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in relation to the government services portfolio in this consideration-in-detail debate. I note the Minister for Government Services has not bothered to grace us with his presence, which is, I'm sorry to say, entirely typical of the contempt and lack of respect that has been consistently shown by Albanese Labor government ministers during this consideration-in-detail process on the appropriation bill. Time after time, ministers have failed to attend, have failed to participate, have failed to be available to respond to questions. They are showing contempt for the parliamentary process of scrutiny, and it's entirely inconsistent with the rhetoric that we saw from the current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, about the approach that he claimed he was going to bring to governing.</para>
<para>It is perhaps no surprise that the Minister for Government Services is not here to defend what is in this budget in relation to his portfolio. We've seen a promise to spend more than $1.8 billion on more than 7,500 additional bureaucrats. The first point to make is that it's very unclear as to the basis for doing this. On 6 November last year the minister told Chris O'Keefe of 2GB, 'Demand is up on previous use.' In other words, perhaps the stated rationale for hiring more people is there's more to deal with.</para>
<para>But what is fascinating is that in budget estimates just this week officials have conceded that in fact customer demand for this financial year is not up, but down. Nor is there any factual basis for the implied assumption that more public servants will lift service standards. The evidence shows that there is no correlation between more public servants and service standards. Let's start with the proposition that service standards are plummeting under this government. Where's the data? Services Australia is now taking 101 days to process a disability support pension claim. What was it in 2021 to 2022 when the coalition left office? It was taking 40 days on average. Service levels have been absolutely trashed, but staff levels are up. When we left government in 2021-22, the average staffing level at Services Australia was 26,838. As of February 2024, it was 28,570. Staff levels have gone up; service levels have gone down. With increased staff numbers, service levels have in fact got worse.</para>
<para>What we've also seen from this minister is the pausing of automation processes. It is deeply disturbing that the first instinct of the member for Maribyrnong was to distrust and block the use of technologies that are critical to the efficient delivery of government services. The benefits of the use of data and digital services for better customer service outcomes are there for all to see. In the 2022-23 financial year, there were over 3.5 million income support related reports made using the single-touch payroll prefilled data. That is technology making life easier for Australians. The minister's hostility to technology is seen right across the government services portfolio. Funding over the forward estimates for the technology and transformation program will decline, and the execution of the multimillion-dollar Health Delivery Modernisation Program is being done very badly. In February 2024, officials from Services Australia claimed it was going 'extremely well', but in this week's estimates we learned that in fact it's in red status.</para>
<para>Similarly, myGov is stagnating under Labor. It's allocating the bare minimum of funding required to keep this important platform on life support. The myGov user audit recommended a road map setting out the timing of when new features would become available. No road map has been issued. This minister has form in making big promises. In February 2023, he promised that the Commonwealth digital Medicare card would be available by mid-2023 within the Service NSW app. It's June 2024, and it still hasn't happened. I ask the Minister for Government Services: What specific customer analytics inform Services Australia's advice to government on the apparent need for 7,500 additional staff? Will the minister guarantee these staff will be wholly dedicated to telephony and claims processing work? Will the minister lift the pause on automation processes? What's his plan to rescue the Health Delivery Modernisation Program? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm always amused to listen to the member for Bradfield talk about taxpayer value after he spent $30 million purchasing the Leppington Triangle from Liberal Party donors. I notice he has run out of the room. The $30 million purchase of the Leppington Triangle was analysed by the Auditor-General, and it was concluded to be $26.7 million over the odds. I do say this though: I accept that the member for Bradfield can help the taxpayer. I understand that Snowy Hydro is having trouble with a giant boring machine—we could lend them the member for Bradfield!</para>
<para>I return to the more serious part of my submission tonight. We speak on this debate on the Appropriation Bill with real confidence in the budget measures in the portfolio responsibilities for government services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We believe Australians deserve to be supported at every stage of their lives to ensure their ability to participate socially and economically in our community. Investment in both Services Australia and the NDIS is an investment in the wellbeing of Australians and our vision of a more inclusive, fairer society. Of course, we come into government having seen the previous government wreak robodebt, where they illegally raised debts against nearly half a million of our fellow Australians with no authority at all to do so. Over four years, despite the warnings—the succession of failed and disgraced government services—ministers of the coalition did nothing. The royal commission has exposed the hollowness at the top end of the previous government in the delivery of services.</para>
<para>On a more positive note, in this budget, we were able to announce an investment of $2.8 billion extra into Services Australia. This funding is going to increase service delivery capability, improve safety for staff and customers and operate and enhance myGov. Building services delivery capability in Services Australia is essential if it's to meet community expectations, so we've invested an extra $1.8 billion over three years to 2025-26 to maintain a customer service workforce to deliver timely services, to reduce call waiting times and processing times and to sustain our emergency response in natural disasters and other aspects of the agency's operations that impact its ability to serve the Australian people. There will be an additional 4,000 staff in financial year 2024-25 and 3,530 staff in financial year 2025-26. This additional staff includes continuing current emergency response capability of an extra 850 staff.</para>
<para>We have been improving the safety of the workforce and the customers at our 318 service centres. We will be investing $314 million across the next two financial years to improve safety. Services Australia intends to improve our security and systems and practices, increased use of security guards, upgraded and enhanced security features at all service centres, enhanced service centre design, improved technical data and capability. We will also be legislating additional penalties for addressing acts of aggression or violence towards Commonwealth frontline staff.</para>
<para>We also have measures to invest to improve, operate and maintain myGov and deliver targeted improvements. It is accessed by over 870,000 people every day and over two million people a day in peak periods, allowing Australians to access 16 government agencies and services in one location. Over the next four years, the agency will receive an additional $629 million to fund the ongoing operation and maintenance of myGov to keep it available, secure, safe and contemporary.</para>
<para>With the NDIS, we continue our commitment to get it back on track and make the investments needed to ensure the scheme is delivering outcomes for the people for whom the scheme was designed. This is important for all Australians, not just Australians with disability. It is one of the most significant social initiatives this century. Like Medicare, the NDIS is an essential safety net and it is important that people know they can receive fair, equitable and consistent treatment in accessing the scheme. The NDIS has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians for the better. The Albanese government is designing our reforms in consultation with the Australian disability community to make sure we can continue to improve the scheme.</para>
<para>In this budget the NDIS will benefit from a further $468 million in funding, an investment that comes on top of the $732 million that we provided in the last budget. We want to fight fraud, we want to discourage the criminal element and we want to make sure that Australians on the scheme have the necessary choice and control, and that they receive supports that are reasonable and necessary. The government remains committed to making sure that the overdue investments in the NDIS mean it can deliver and keep delivering sustainably in the future.</para>
<para>In conclusion, our budget commitments for both Services Australia and the NDIS are emblematic of our commitment to Australians as customers of services and programs and as taxpayers. We feel keenly the responsibility to do the right thing by the people and we do this every day.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the social services portfolio, specifically in regard to violence against women, because the family violence prevention sector wants answers as to why there wasn't any new funding for frontline services in the budget. Given violence against women and children is a national emergency, it was reasonable to expect more money for the services that keep women and children safe. As author and educator on coercive control Jess Hill said in this place last week, 'Violence against women and children is the most corrosive social issue of our time.' It is an uncomfortable truth, but family and domestic violence is gendered. The family home is statistically the most dangerous place for a woman to be. It should be a safe and secure place for everyone who lives in it, not a place of fear, danger and sometimes death.</para>
<para>So on behalf of the sector I ask: where was the new funding for family and domestic violence frontline services, and, if not now, when? Women's legal services turn away an estimated 52,000 women every year due to lack of capacity. If it doesn't receive any more funding, Southside Justice that services my electorate and south-east Melbourne will have to reduce its family law and family violence free legal services.</para>
<para>It is self-evident that domestic and family violence services are not funded to meet demand for their vital case management services. Sexual violence trauma counselling services have dire waiting lists around the country, and many victim-survivors have to wait months. Frontline services need sustainable, consistent and certain investment. Women and children escaping violent men need 24/7 wraparound services. If these services aren't available, women are forced to go back to their violent partner, couch surf or live in the car. This is happening to women in our country, this is happening to women in my electorate, and this is a disgrace.</para>
<para>We know that family violence is the leading cause of women's homelessness in Australia. I'm pleased the government will provide an additional $1 billion to the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, targeted toward crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. But my question to the minister is: when and where will we see the $1 billion for crisis and transitional accommodation, and what will be the oversights to make sure this is delivered by the states? Each night, more than 200 women and children are being sent to motels across Victoria by Safe Steps because there aren't enough crisis accommodation places available. When victims-survivors are placed in motels, there's no on-site security, monitoring or support, and motels carry significant risks for victims-survivors, including suicide, suicide attempts and easy access for perpetrators. Women escaping violence face homelessness, poverty and financial insecurity.</para>
<para>Where was the income support in the budget to stop women from going back to danger? The $5,000 leaving violence payment will not prevent this. More than 200 women leaders wrote to the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the budget urging him to provide economic security for women leaving violence by raising the rate of JobSeeker. This did not happen. The government has increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent, but this is only $11 a week for a single mother with one or two children. The government expanded eligibility for the single parenting payment at the last May budget, helping 82,000 more single parents remain on higher rates until their youngest child turns 14, but this payment remains inadequate to ensure single parents and their children do not live in poverty. Women should not have to choose between violence and poverty.</para>
<para>We know from the findings of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence that perpetrators use the justice, health and finance systems to continue their control. Where was the recognition of perpetrators weaponising these systems? The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee reports both recommended delinking child support from family payments. This is a tool of financial abuse, and the loophole that allows child support and family payments to be used as vehicles for enacting financial abuse must be closed.</para>
<para>In conclusion, to drive down rates of violence urgently, our response must come from all angles, and everything needs to be on the table. We must also focus on prevention and perpetrators. We need to hold industries and institutions that continue to promote harm to account. Online porn and gambling spring to mind. This is the moment for comprehensive action, for solutions and for working together to address this national emergency.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The NDIS, originally a Labor creation, was legislated by the Gillard government in 2013, and it fills me with great pride to see the good it has done for so many. I have spoken with countless constituents who talk about the transformative way the NDIS has changed their lives and the lives of family members. That's why it's so important that the Albanese government act now to protect the NDIS so that this life-changing work is sustainable into the future. The previous government failed to adequately monitor the NDIS, and this has put its future in jeopardy. In contrast, our government has always made the NDIS an absolute priority.</para>
<para>During the election campaign, Labor announced a commitment for a root-and-branch review of the NDIS conducted by independent experts. The NDIS Review was launched by the Minister for the NDIS, the Hon. Bill Shorten, on 18 October 2022. The objective of the NDIS Review was to put people with a disability back in the centre of the scheme, and this has characterised the Albanese government's response to the review and our third budget.</para>
<para>Building on our commitments to the NDIS, this budget ensures the scheme is on track and can support those Australians with a disability. It provides a further investment of $468.7 million, building on the $732.9 million provided in the 2023-24 budget and the $511.12 million investments in the 2023-24 MYEFO. This year's investments include $83.9 million to support the NDIA in reducing waste and combating fraud by improving its ICT compatibility, and a further $23.5 million for Services Australia to extend the agency's involvement in the Fraud Fusion Taskforce until 30 June 2026.</para>
<para>The Minister for the NDIS has made it a priority to crack down on fraud within the scheme and to stop the overcharging of NDIS participants. The minister said it best earlier this year when he said, 'The era of ripping off disabled people on the NDIS is over.' It is a shameful practice. It takes advantage of Australians who are in need of disability support, and this government is working to end it. Additional funding of $5.3 million will also support preliminary work to reform NDIS pricing arrangements, to help ensure that NDIS participants get a fair deal and to increase the transparency of how prices are set. The government also understands how important proper consultation and co-design are for the future of NDIS reforms, which is why the Albanese government is investing $129.8 million for design and consultation work to respond to the findings of the NDIS review. This government is committed to safeguarding the NDIS and ensuring it is sustainable into the future, but not at the expense of Australians with a disability. The funding contained in this budget will be critical for achieving this shared goal.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has also provided funding of $45.5 million over four years to establish an NDIS evidence advisory committee. The new committee, which was a key recommendation of the review, will provide government with independent advice on what works for participants and on the evidence for therapeutic supports, ensuring better outcomes and value for money. The government will invest $20 million over two years on design work and consultation to help Australians with a disability navigate their services. This is in response to several key findings of the review, which brought to light the challenges that many with a disability, their families and carers face when attempting to access vital support services.</para>
<para>The budget also invests $160.7 million over four years to upgrade the NDIS commission's IT under the Data and Regulatory Transformation, or DART, program, helping the commission collect and analyse data to better protect participants, reduce regulatory burdens and improve cybersecurity. The Albanese government is committed to building on the NDIS and honouring its initial purpose when it was first established in 2013. I've seen firsthand that the Minister for the NDIS is committed to setting things right, working tirelessly with the sector, peak bodies and, more importantly, participants to ensure their needs are met and that we see the National Disability Insurance Scheme be sustainable and robust and provide for the goals of the person with a disability. I look forward to continuing to work beside the minister to ensure that the NDIS can support all Australians with a disability, especially those in my community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, particularly as it relates to the portfolio of social services and disability services. I will start with the royal commission that was held into disability services. This was established by the coalition in April 2019, and it was properly established in response to community concern about widespread reports of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability. It has now come down with 222 recommendations. It was a long road leading to the release of the royal commission's findings. Although released over eight months ago, we still have not seen a proper ministerial response to those recommendations.</para>
<para>Just to recap, the royal commission was far reaching. There were almost 8,000 submissions received, 17,824 phone inquiries, 14 issues papers published and 1,785 private sessions held. With all the energy that went into that royal commission, it is appropriate that it should be responded to by the minister. My question to the minister is: aside from budget commitments of $227 million from 2023-24 to replace the existing Disability Employment Services program and $23 million to establish a disability employment centre of excellence, how much is in the budget this year and across the forward estimates in response to the royal commission's 222 recommendations?</para>
<para>Secondly, what specific measures has the minister taken to improve outcomes for people with disabilities in response to the findings—222 findings—of the disability royal commission's final report? And how does the government plan to prioritise engagement and consultation with the disability community in formulating its formal response to the disability royal commission's final report? Most importantly, when will the minister release the government's formal response?</para>
<para>I want to turn now to education for students with disability. There is an increasing number of students with disability in our schools—they're an increasing proportion of our schools' students—and there's increasing demand for higher levels of adjustment for these students.</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australian schools do not consistently deliver an inclusive education that protects students with disability from violence, abuse and neglect.</para></quote>
<para>That's a direct quote from the disability royal commission's report. It goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Students with disability face multiple barriers to inclusive education, underpinned by negative attitudes and low expectations.</para></quote>
<para>We need to do far better in this space. Schools do systematically exclude students with disability. They do this by sometimes not providing appropriate adjustments and supports to enable those students' participation in classrooms and in the broader school community. However, there are many students who simply cannot be accommodated in mainstream schools, and—no matter the will of the teachers and the extraordinary work that the teachers and teachers' aides are doing in those schools—for some students, mainstream schools simply are not the answer.</para>
<para>We have some excellent segregated or special schools doing remarkable work for students with disabilities across our country. I particularly want to mention three in my electorate: Bates Drive School, the Minerva School and also the Cook School.</para>
<para>However, unfortunately, the royal commission's report did state that, in many cases, students with disabilities are channelled into special or segregated schools and classes. The commissioners were divided as to whether or not we should be proceeding to maintain systems of special and segregated education settings, separate from mainstream schools, or whether, instead, we should be further empowering teachers and better funding schools to move far more students with disabilities into mainstream schools.</para>
<para>It's an important issue for our community. It's an important issue for the students and for their parents. Therefore, my question to the minister is: can the minister provide any indication on whether the government is supportive of, or taking into consideration, the phasing-out of special education schools for students with disabilities? That's just one reason why we desperately need a response from the minister on that report. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse laid bare a shocking history of betrayal and abuse of innocent children by adults working in the very institutions that were entrusted with their safety and innocence. Over five years, the commissioners comprehensively examined large volumes of evidence, from some 57 public hearings, at which 1,200 witnesses appeared over 400 days, over 25,000 items of correspondence and more than 8,000 private sessions. Indeed, many of those were conducted in my home town of Newcastle.</para>
<para>The National Redress Scheme was the primary outcome of this royal commission. It told survivors of institutional child sexual abuse that they were believed, that what happened to them was never okay and that they deserved the full respect of and a proper response from our community, our legal institutions and our political parliaments. The NRS, the National Redress Scheme, is holding institutions to account for having failed to protect those that were in their care.</para>
<para>Victims and survivors from Newcastle and the Hunter region spent a lot of time agitating for the royal commission to take hearings in Newcastle. Sadly, there were two entire volumes dedicated to the abuse that took place in my region. My community knows firsthand the ongoing impacts that that abuse has had on not just survivors but their families and the whole community. Victims-survivors are not just traumatised by the abuse. They're traumatised by the stigma and by the historical disbelief and the turning of a blind eye to—or, indeed, deliberate cover-ups of—the shocking crimes against children.</para>
<para>In just under six years of the National Redress Scheme being in place, over 40,000 applications have been received from across Australia. Of those, there have been 16,000 applications with outcomes, including over $137 billion in payments that have been issued to survivors. This has gone some way to addressing survivors' trauma by recognising that it happened and that it was never, ever okay.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to a timely, trauma-informed and accessible National Redress Scheme that supports survivors. That's why this government, for a third time, has provided additional resourcing to support the scheme in this year's budget. We have committed $33.3 million for new and expanded services for National Redress Scheme applicants, including $26.1 million over four years for some new targeted support services. This expanded service will assist survivors to submit applications to the scheme, which will improve the completion of applications and cut down on the processing times, meaning quicker outcomes for the applicants.</para>
<para>We'll also be investing $7.2 million towards boosting free legal services and support for survivors as they navigate applications for redress. It makes sense that we help people navigate their way through this difficult application process, and it's great to see this budget initiative. This package recognises that for survivors accessing the scheme it can mean revisiting the trauma that they hold from their abuse. Some people may need help, and, for those who need it now, they'll be given help, including a further $2.16 million for targeted support for incarcerated survivors and those requiring culturally safe support services, particularly for regional and remote applicants. This government is ensuring that no survivor of institutional child sexual abuse is locked out of accessing the scheme, if they wish to access it, no matter what their barrier.</para>
<para>This is the third budget that we have provided additional support to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. We know that this job is by no means done, but it is a commitment from this government that we will always seek to improve the scheme and the support for survivors. Minister, how important is it that we continue to recognise and support survivors of institutional child sexual abuse through boosting resourcing for the National Redress Scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to rise to speak to the appropriation bill consideration in detail for social services. My question for the Minister for Social Services is: is the rapid review of prevention approaches an acknowledgement that the government has failed to identify and prioritise investment in prevention and appropriate early interventions as a pathway to ending violence in a generation?</para>
<para>I will always work in a bipartisan way with the other side when it comes to domestic violence and tackling the scourge that faces our society. The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 is the Australian, state and territory governments' central policy initiative designed to address family and domestic violence. To their credit this government has continued the good work of the coalition government and invested close to $2.3 billion in funding for women's safety measures across the October 2022-23 and the 2023-24 budgets, along with a further $1.1 billion towards the national plan and women's safety. This is needed. This is required. These support services are required to care for and provide those support networks and safety nets for victim-survivors and those escaping domestic violence. However, this budget largely prioritises responses rather than prevention and early intervention. Given the scale of the problem, it is unclear whether the combined effects of the Commonwealth's efforts and that of the states and territories will succeed in mitigating the harm that victims-survivors continue to face.</para>
<para>It's pleasing to see an additional $900 million in payments for escaping domestic violence. This is a continuation of the program that the coalition put in place. It was estimated that there would be some 12,000 applications during the life of the escaping domestic violence payments. There was, in fact, 60,000 payments to the tune of $400 million. It's important that we continue these payments to help those victims-survivors and those women and children who need to escape domestic violence situations. But we have to address prevention and intervention. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result. That's exactly what we've been doing. We have been doing the same thing over and over, year after year, and not providing dollar-for-dollar funding for prevention and intervention.</para>
<para>I have travelled, in the role of shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence, around Australia, and I have spoken to agencies. I've spoken to service providers. I've spoken to victims-survivors. They all agree that whilst those support services are needed, we have to change our thinking and we have to look at the programs and look at the systems which are not in place that need to be in place and that are preventative programs. These are programs such as men's support programs for male offenders. We're not rewarding the male offenders; we are educating them to change their behaviour. There are waiting lists of hundreds of people on the programs which currently exist. In Queensland, there are over 400 people on one list alone who have self-referred. These programs work.</para>
<para>We as a government need to directly fund those agencies who can show evidence based programs that work to change the thinking generationally. Until we do that, we will keep doing the same thing over and over, and nothing will change. Domestic violence numbers will only get worse. The other thing we have to implement immediately is a national curriculum for respectful relationships—not one day a year, not one day a month, but part of the curriculum: reading, writing, arithmetic and respect. Until we do that, we'll keep going around and around.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind members that the debate tonight must be conducted strictly in accordance with the resolution of the House. The speakers must alternate, and the debate for each portfolio must end at the designated time. To that end, in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 28 May 2024, the question is that the proposed expenditure for the social services portfolio be agreed to.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>180</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government understands how critical international trade and investment is for the Australian economy. That includes the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Don Farrell, who I'm very proud to represent in this place. He is such a strong advocate for our country on the international stage. He's a great South Australian and a great trade minister. More trade and investment means more national income and more secure, well-paid local jobs. It means a stronger, more diversified and more resilient Australian economy, which is why the Albanese Labor government is making significant investments to expand our trade opportunities, repair our international reputation and simplify our trading system.</para>
<para>This includes stabilising our relationship with China, Australia's largest trading partner. Since the election of the Albanese Labor government two years ago, nearly $20 billion in trade impediments have been removed. Just last week, China lifted suspensions on a further five meat establishments. It followed the lifting of trade impediments on Australian barley, cotton, oaten hay, wine, coal, copper ores and timber. This government is working to see all remaining trade impediments removed as soon as possible, including for Australia's rock lobster industry, which is particularly important to my home state of Western Australia.</para>
<para>I would note that just a week ago it was the one-year anniversary of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement, which Minister Farrell ensured got through this parliament in record time. This has unlocked tariff-free beef and sheepmeat into the UK.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do acknowledge the member for Wannon who, as trade minister at the time, had a lot to do with the negotiations in that free trade agreement. I was shadow trade minister at the time, so I had a bit to do with it as well. It is undoubtably a great free trade agreement, and congratulations to all concerned.</para>
<para>Trade diversification remains a key element of this government's trade policy strategy. That is why we are generating new and diversified trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses. Negotiations have started on an FTA with the United Arab Emirates, which will facilitate investment, grow Australian exports and create secure, well-paid jobs across the country. The UAE is Australia's largest trade and investment partner in that region, with two-way trade worth $9.4 billion in 2022-23.</para>
<para>Since the Albanese Labor government brought the Australia-India Economic Trade and Cooperation Agreement into force, trade with one of the world's fastest growing economies has surged. I might take this moment to congratulate Prime Minister Modi on his re-election as the Prime Minister of India. The government is building on this success by progressing negotiations for a more ambitious agreement, allowing us to go further into areas such as digital trade and deliver even more opportunities for our exporters. The recent budget includes $14.4 million to expand the successful Australia-India Business Exchange, allowing even more Australian businesses to benefit from new trade and investment opportunities with India and across South Asia. The budget also includes a $2 billion South-East Asia investment financing facility to boost our trade and investment in the region and over $500 million to deepen economic ties with South-East Asia, the fastest growing region in the world.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government understands the economic opportunities that a global energy transition brings. The resources needed for the world to reach net zero lie right beneath our feet, and that is why we are working closely with our trading partners to promote investment in critical minerals, hydrogen and clean energy technologies. Just last week, alongside Minister Farrell, I signed a memorandum of understanding between Australia and the European Union on the strengthening of critical minerals supply chains. This will ensure that Australian miners and Australian mining processes will have greater access to European Union automotive original equipment manufacturers and green tech manufacturers, which will be vital for supply chains into the future for our country and also for the massive market that is the European Union.</para>
<para>The government is also making changes to streamline Australia's trading system and strengthen Australia's foreign investment framework. We have invested $29.9 million to streamline trade processes through the Simplified Trade System, making trade faster, easier and cheaper for Australian importers and exporters. We've invested over $10 million in the successful Go Global Toolkit, which offers online export information and advice to help Australian businesses expand overseas.</para>
<para>These are just some and there are many more of the 2024-25 budget measures that will support trade, and there are also, of course, measures to support tourism. We know all of these industries are very important for national prosperity.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to talk on the foreign affairs part of this discussion, and my very good friend here will talk on the trade aspects. We've got some serious questions that we'd like the government to answer. When it comes to foreign affairs, it is a shame that the Minister for Government Services has left the chamber, because I know he's going to a very important meeting regarding Ukraine, and he's saying that he will be standing with Ukraine. Well, what we would like the Minister for Government Services to say when he goes over there is that Australia is going to reopen its embassy in Ukraine, in Kyiv. Given that around 70 other countries, including Canada, which previously hosted the Australian embassy in Kyiv, have been able to reopen their embassies, we need to know: why is the Albanese Labor government making Australia, as Michael Fullilove from the Lowy Institute puts it, a 'notable laggard' and, as Mick Ryan says—and I take my hat off to Mick Ryan for his outstanding work on Ukraine—'unserious' and 'interested but not committed to supporting Ukraine'? We would really like an answer to that question.</para>
<para>The second question is also with regard to Ukraine. Australia used to be the largest non-NATO contributor to Ukraine. Japan and South Korea have already overtaken Australia's financial contributions to Ukraine, and they've managed to reopen their embassies in Ukraine ahead of Australia. When will the Albanese government admit that their late and half-hearted decisions have resulted in Australia losing its leadership role in supporting Ukraine? And when will we up our financial contribution and other contributions to Ukraine? Why does the Prime Minister's rhetoric talk about standing with Ukraine but his actions are to have our ambassador standing over the border in Poland? As someone who has worked as a diplomat, I know it is very difficult to do your job when you're not actually present in the country. So, we want an answer from the government as to when this decision is going to be taken.</para>
<para>I'll just give you a sense of the types of countries that have a diplomatic presence, have embassies, in Ukraine: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Chechnya, Denmark, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kurdistan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkiye, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, United States, Egypt, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, India, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Libya. It is a fairly comprehensive list, and when you read out every one of those names it puts Australia to shame, sadly.</para>
<para>I know we've got the minister here, and maybe he can take this message back to the senior minister: when are we going to see the embassy in Kyiv reopen? If ever there was a time when countries needed to stand with Ukraine, it is now. If ever there was a time when we needed to stand up to totalitarianism, it is now. If ever there was a time for us to stand up and defend liberal democratic principles, it is now. If ever there was a time for us to stand up and say to Vladimir Putin, 'Your treachery, your heinous behaviour will not be tolerated; we will not let you bully this sovereign, independent country,' that time is now. The heinous crimes he is committing in Ukraine need to be stopped, and we need to stand with Ukraine. Opening our embassy in Kyiv would be a very good first step.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the last member for his contribution, and I'll take his questions on notice.</para>
<para>I'm proud to serve in a government that's working so hard to secure our place in the region. At a time of such uncertainty, the Albanese government is investing in all aspects of our national power to keep Australia safe. Our National Defence Strategy recognises that our front line of securing our interest in keeping Australians safe is in fact our diplomacy. That's why in this budget we've invested so significantly in our diplomats, in our overseas network, in our bilateral and regional relationships and in supporting sustainable development across the Indo-Pacific. That's because the government understands that our future is inextricably linked with the prosperity and security of our neighbours and our region.</para>
<para>This budget will deliver $227 million over the forwards to improve our international communications, infrastructure and property, because you can't be an effective partner if you don't have the facilities there. We're providing $206 million to improve our presence across the Pacific, and we're matching our ambitions with the resources needed to do the job. Through this budget, we're providing $206 million in new official development assistance for new initiatives in the Pacific and South-East Asia. Through this budget, we're delivering on the groundbreaking Falepili Union with Tuvalu, including $110 million in total to support infrastructure, telecommunications, land reclamation and service delivery. Our investments in official development assistance are also worth highlighting. In 2024-25, we'll provide a total of more than $2 billion in ODA to the Pacific, a record level. We'll provide $1.3 billion of ODA to South-East Asia, and we anticipate hitting the threshold of providing $5 billion in total ODA next year, in 2025-26, which is a year earlier than we anticipated. These are all strong achievements of a government that's committed to acting in the national interest and putting the national interest ahead of political interests.</para>
<para>It was a coincidence, but a happy coincidence, that I'm following the member for Wannon's contribution, because I want to use a bit of time to reflect on how the coalition, the opposition, when given a choice between the national interest and short-term political interest, put their short-term political interest first. This budget is an example of that. The shadow minister's stance on the Pacific engagement visa was one of the greatest examples of putting petty politics ahead of the national interest. This Pacific engagement visa was a critical part of our strategy of using every tool of statecraft to advance our position in the Pacific region. By building the diaspora of Pasifika communities in Australia, we would build the people-to-people ties that are so critical to us being the partner of choice to the region. What did the coalition opposition do? They opposed it. You would have thought, after they spent 9½ years destroying our relationship with countries in the Pacific—you just have to look at the Pacific governments' attitude and public statements about Mr Morrison and at how they stuffed up our relationship with the Pacific—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page will restrain himself.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You'd think they would have learnt and would get on board with team Australia and try to repair the damage. But no. The member for Wannon, as the shadow immigration minister, does what he does best: putting petty political interests ahead of the national interest. He blocked the Pacific engagement visa.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I would remind all honourable members that the minister has every right to be heard.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker, but I'll take that interjection. The reason the coalition opposed the Pacific engagement visa is that they 'want to keep Australia safe'. So are they suggesting migrants from the Pacific who go through all relevant police checks are a risk to Australia? That just demonstrates their attitude to the Pacific and how they stuffed up the relationships. If they really cared about keeping Australia safe, they would know that it's critical that we be the partner of choice in the Pacific and that we have a position where we're strongly supported in the Pacific region. Instead they dog-whistle and put petty politics ahead, and the Pacific engagement visa is exhibit 1 in that. Quite frankly, the shadow trade minister's response to my statement, in which he talked about keeping Australia safe by keeping Pacific migrants out, is a demonstration that they are unfit to govern, cannot be trusted with national security, cannot be trusted with putting the national interest first and cannot be trusted with government full stop.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will go on record as saying the coalition government, when in government, loved the PALM scheme, Minister. We're very supportive of the PALM scheme, and in fact we're very disappointed by the fact that you're going to put more restrictions on it.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I will start by saying—you've been in this place longer than I have—what a joke this process by the Labor government is. Consideration in detail, when we were in government, was a very robust process. We would have ministers here and ministers there. The fact that the minister who is representing the Minister for Trade and, I assume, the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a five-minute presentation and left was a joke, Deputy Speaker Wilkie. I know that you would have witnessed many more robust discussions than this. So they're not interested in this process, and it just shows the lack of due process. They're not into democracy, really.</para>
<para>Let me start on the trade figures. One of the great achievements of the coalition government when in government from 2013 to 2022—and you would have observed this, Deputy Speaker Wilkie—were the free trade agreements that we did. There were quite a number of both bilaterals and multilaterals, to the extent that goods and services covered by trade agreements when we came into government were at about 25 per cent and, by the time we left, were at 80 per cent. That was because of the number of free trade agreements that we had done during that time, both multilateral and bilateral.</para>
<para>With those free trade agreements, we're selling, I would say, over $650 billion a year of goods and services to other countries, and a lot of that is on the back and on the basis of the free trade agreements that we did. They are funding our export industries. The four biggest are coal, gas, iron ore and farming. That side doesn't like a lot of those things, but they're funding our life right now. The government services they're paying for are enormous and very important to our economy and our country's welfare.</para>
<para>I have a question about an important part of those for the minister who's not here—a question for the minister who has disappeared, but anyway. As we know, the issue with the Labor Party, which has always been an issue for the Labor Party, is that they only have one stakeholder. We, as a government, had a lot of stakeholders. They only have one stakeholder, and that's the union movement. The union movement have told them, because they're operated by the union movement—they're puppets of the union movement, whichever union they've come from—that they cannot do a free trade agreement with an ISDS provision in it. That's the investor-state dispute settlement process.</para>
<para>Let me just remind those opposite of the free trade agreements that have got you in and wouldn't have been done if you were in government. You wouldn't have been able to do them because you wouldn't have been able to—</para>
<para>A government member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I know the one you wouldn't have been able to do. Andrew Robb told me a story. He had a job KPI to do three free trade agreements in his first year as trade minister in 2013. Do you know the first one he did? The first one he did was South Korea, because it had been done, dealt and dusted. The only problem is the Labor trade minister couldn't sign the deal because the union said, 'You can't sign this deal with that ISDS provision in it.' So they didn't. Guess what? Andrew Robb came in on day 1, saying, 'That's fine. Great. There you go. Thank you,' because we were happy to sign up to those ISDS provisions.</para>
<para>I'll go through some of them. The deals that have an ISDS provision in them are the CPTPP, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Our agreements with Chile, Singapore, Thailand, ASEAN, Peru, Hong Kong and Indonesia all have ISDS provisions. The union movement have told this lot, 'You've got to revisit all those,' and all those free trade agreements are at risk because of that. Again, this is just ideological blindness.</para>
<para>When you look at the stats, what do the ISDS provisions mean? They mean that only once has another country questioned us on our free trade agreements and what we've done. It got defeated within our court process. They don't like hearing it, but 12 times has an Australian investment in another country been protected by the ISDS provisions. So they are actually working for people in Australia when they invest in other countries. But, again, we're not surprised. This is just another demonstration that the other side are owned and occupied by the trade union movement. So my question to the minister who disappeared is: are you going to risk our free trade agreements by abandoning ISDS provisions in existing free trade agreements? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no question that, for an island-continent-nation like Australia, our engagement with the wider world and especially with our region is absolutely critical to our wellbeing and to our national interest in every dimension. Of course, that engagement occurs primarily through the three Ds and a T—diplomacy, development assistance, defence and trade. While there is an understandable focus on trade and defence, it is critical that Australians understand the massive importance of diplomacy and development assistance. That is because for Australia—an open, peaceful, multicultural trading nation—international cooperation is vital for dealing with matters that we alone cannot solve, like the pressure on global fisheries and the impacts of climate change. So too the stability, health and inclusive prosperity of our neighbours are vital. We know carefully and compassionately administered development assistance is not only essential for saving lives and reducing poverty but also the best dollar-for-dollar investment Australia can make in regional peace and mutually beneficial economic engagement.</para>
<para>We already know very well but we certainly have been reminded in recent times that the observance of the rule of law is vital. Australia benefits from a world in which there is a prevalence of support for a rules based system whether in relation to trade, freedom of navigation or management of conflict through the UN, the ICC and the ICJ, rather than backsliding towards an approach in which anything goes and narrow temporary self-interest comes to undermine the broad and enduring common good.</para>
<para>From the outset the Albanese government has set out to repair the characteristic neglect, inaction and carelessness in all these areas that were a feature of the coalition government. It has been good to hear from the minister about that. As he knows, he has been a part of the full court press led by the indefatigable and resolute Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has visited every ASEAN nation except Myanmar—for good reason—and has successfully returned Australia to our most effective role as an influential middle power that pursues our national interests on the basis of principled and pragmatic optimism, taking the world as we find it while seeking to make it more peaceful and sustainable and inclusively prosperous where we can. We do that on the basis of respectful dialogue and constructive multilateral participation. That work has been thoroughly advanced by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, who has been relentless in his attention to Australia's role as a responsive and respectful member of the Pacific family. The value of enhancing our role in that state of affairs has delivered improvements in terms of our regional security—awfully neglected by those opposite, it has to be said—but of course it's meant that we have been well placed to support a partner like Papua New Guinea when they manage an awful event like the recent landslide.</para>
<para>We made it clear in coming to government that we deeply respect Australia's Public Service—another stark contrast with those opposite, a sadly stark contrast—in order to build back Australia's diplomatic capability. This budget invests $254 million in our diplomatic network as a whole, with $206 million to enhance our presence in both infrastructure and human capital across the Pacific, as the minister has outlined. Because we know climate impact mitigation and adaptation are existential concern for the Pacific, we are providing $150 million over four years with the Green Climate Fund and the Pacific Resilience Facility. Add to that $505 million in the budget for deepening engagement in South-East Asia, which will be complemented by a new trillion-dollar South-East Asia investment financing facility to expand trade investment.</para>
<para>I want to note the not so up-in-lights work that has been occurring steadily with respect to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, two areas which Australia has a substantial record of leadership and achievement. Last month the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs was in Vienna to represent Australia as co-president for the International Atomic Energy Agency's conference on nuclear security. In 2023, the assistant minister represented Australia at the conference on disarmament to advance work on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. These are matters that are important in the Pacific, noting that 12 Pacific Island nations are already signatories to the landmark treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.</para>
<para>It's welcome that Australia continues to support the Republic of Marshall Islands to develop a sovereign radiation monitoring capability and we will make submission to the UN Secretary-General's report in the 2023 Kiribati-sponsored resolution on addressing the legacy of nuclear weapons.</para>
<para>The Albanese government knows the extent to which focus, strategic and wholehearted international engagement is in Australia's national interest and is consistent with our national values. I would ask the minister to explain how this has already manifested in a range of positive outcomes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fremantle. Someone might let the member for Page know that the standing order on relevance does not apply to the consideration in detail debate of the appropriation bills.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to put partisan politics aside and put on record that the first person I called when I was given the role of shadow minister for international development and the Pacific was the minister at the table, the member for Shortland. We've worked together well on some initiatives; we've disagreed on others. I would appreciate, if not an answer in person tonight, an answer in writing to a couple of very important questions I have.</para>
<para>I read from the 'Building a vibrant future for Papua New Guinea and Australia: working together to achieve better health outcomes'. I note that Papua New Guinea is one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world, ranked 154 of 193 in the 2022 Human Development Index. There are some alarming statistics. Sixty-five per cent of children aged 12 to 23 months have not received necessary vaccinations. One in 20 children in PNG do not survive to their fifth birthday. Twenty-one per cent of deaths in PNG are a result of infectious disease. There is one dentist to everyone 100,000 people. There are 27,000 cases of tuberculosis each year, and of these 3.4 per cent of cases are drug resistant. The proportion of deaths from injuries is 19.1 per cent—more than double global estimates, which is eight per cent.</para>
<para>The minister would have met, as I did, in recent days with Papua New Guinea's first lady, Mrs Rachael Marape. There were others with the Youth With A Mission medical ships, including former PNG deputy prime minister Charles Abel, a good friend of our country—they're both patrons of this wonderful organisation—YWAM Townsville managing director, Ken Mulligan, and the general manager of this community development program, Dr Sarah Dunn, who I'm sure you would agree gave compelling evidence.</para>
<para>This ship operates in PNG, with a focus on the remote western province, providing critical health services including immunisation programs, health education, eye and dental care, medical training, antenatal services and family planning amongst other services. Critically, they're providing vital services for women and children. I, like the minister, appreciate that the future for PNG belongs in making sure we get women and children the proper health care they need, they expect and they deserve. PNG is our closest neighbour; it is a stone's throw from our northern shores.</para>
<para>The delegation told the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Simon Birmingham, and I that through the vessel's 130 volunteers—volunteers; just consider that—that immunisation rates have gone from less than five per cent to above 50 per cent. How good is that? But there's so much more we can do; there is so much more we should do. In the meeting, the delegation outlined its need for $7.5 million in capital to provide life extension of the vessel, MV <inline font-style="italic">YWAM PNG</inline>. The funding would ensure upgrades to allow the vessel to meet maritime requirements when it reaches 25 years of age mid next year.</para>
<para>Australia has a longstanding connection with our closest neighbour. No-one knows that more than the minister and I. We've spent time there in recent years. We've visited the capital, Port Moresby; we've visited highland villages; we've seen in remote provinces what can be done with Australian funding. Minister, I ask you tonight, from the bottom of my heart, will you make a commitment to fully fund this worthwhile project to continue to strengthen our wonderful relationship with PNG? If you want to give me an answer, I'm happy to sit down and you can use the last minute for that.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to give up my one minute.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you give up your minute—it can go to the minister, but then it must go back to a non-government member.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Anyway, I would love an answer at some stage because the project is vital. You know that. I know that. I'm sure Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham know that as well. I'll hope for a positive answer. The $7.5 million, in the grand scheme of what we do with our foreign aid in the area PNG, is a brilliant investment.</para>
<para>Given the fact that I am allowed the last 30 seconds—I'm sure I'll get a positive answer on that other one, because it's too important not to do it, Minister—I note that changes have been made with the PALM labour mobility scheme. Stakeholders who have consulted with me say the changes are moving in the right direction, but they'd like to see it extended further, to be averaged over eight to 12 weeks, not just the four weeks that you've done, to bring it in line with the horticultural award. Will you please consider making this change to further ensure the success of this scheme. Again, it's too important not to do it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight and, like the last couple of speeches, I will focus on Australia's work in international development. I might just pick up where the previous member left off on investment in health in our region because it is a vital part of our international development program. Certainly, as one of the co-chairs of the parliamentary caucus for TB, I know just how important that health investment is—the $17 million that we are putting into the global alliance to help tackle TB in our region. We know that there are real challenges in our area, but there are also real gains to be made. If we invest in the health of people in our region, we unlock so much potential. We unlock the ability for people to go on from that stable foundation of good health to being able to get an education and being able to work towards economic prosperity. So it, absolutely, is a vital part of our international development program.</para>
<para>I have had the privilege of seeing this investment in action in a number of circumstances in the Pacific. Most recently, I was in the Solomon Islands as part of a parliamentary delegation. I was pleased to be able to visit Munda to see a pathology clinic there that had been funded under the Australian government's international development program in recognition of the need, which had become evident during the pandemic, for them to be able to do pathology testing locally and how important that was to local health services. We spoke with the doctor at the local hospital where the pathology clinic was located and heard firsthand about the benefit that it is going to provide through some wonderful machines. I'm not going to pretend I understand the technical nature of pathology testing, but the machines will be important in detecting and managing diseases in the region. There are locally trained pathologists, which, again, is fantastic. We have Australian development assistance helping people to get skills and work locally in good jobs.</para>
<para>When I was in that region I was also fortunate to see a childcare centre funded under Australia's international development program. I believe it is the first of its kind in the Solomon Islands, and it is associated with one of the local factories. Recognising that women who come to work in the factory from surrounding areas may not have the traditional family structures there that would have looked after their children, this childcare centre is providing them with another option and is, therefore, providing them with a chance for economic development, stability for their family and a great start for their children. What we talk about here in Australia, in terms of how child care and early education provide our young children with the best start in life, is absolutely true for our neighbours as well. I've been really privileged to have had a lot of experience seeing some of this firsthand, both in my work here in this parliament and in my previous life, where for a brief period of time I also worked in international development and humanitarian aid.</para>
<para>It is also important to note that we get these gains through investing, and our government has made serious investments in our international development budget. Our 2024-25 budget marks an increase of $542 million compared to the previous year. In the coming year we will be providing $4.96 billion in official development assistance. This builds on the increases we've delivered since we came to office, and it means we will reach $5 billion of ODA in the 2025-26 financial year, one year earlier than originally planned.</para>
<para>The need is obviously great, but I think this budget demonstrates that our government is taking this challenge and the need seriously. We are focusing on how we can support and rebuild this budget after it was slashed under nine years of the coalition. We recognise that this investment not only gets the types of outcomes I was just talking about but also builds relationships. It shows people particularly in our Pacific region that we take our role as a good neighbour seriously and that we are prepared to put our money, our thoughtfulness and our resources behind those investments. We are doing that as well through unions that we've put in place. I particularly highlight the work we've been doing with Tuvalu on a very important agreement for both our nations, which is helping to strengthen our collective peace, security and sovereignty and, of course, putting at the forefront the pressing needs that the people of Tuvalu face with regard to climate change. I have already addressed the health challenges that we are working with our Pacific neighbours on, but it is absolutely true that climate change is a part of the health picture as well. We will stand by our Pacific neighbours and continue to invest in our relationships.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I'm having dinner with the Georgian, Turkish and Azerbaijani ambassadors. I'm looking forward to that opportunity because, as the shadow minister for international development and the Pacific, it's important—as the member for Jagajaga has just said—to have diplomatic relations.</para>
<para>I do take umbrage, however, with the assertion that the coalition in government between 2013 and 2022 did not do enough in the space of foreign assistance, foreign development and foreign aid. I have to say that, as a foreign affairs minister, Senator Marise Payne was excellent. Her work with the then minister, the member for Mitchell, to rescue Australians and others when Afghanistan collapsed was nothing short of remarkable. Indeed, there should be a movie made with the rescues at the airport and the scenes there, and getting people out of the capital when everything went asunder.</para>
<para>More than that, this shadow portfolio role is important in ensuring that the government has bipartisanship in many areas of foreign affairs. I have worked well with Senator Birmingham, the shadow foreign affairs minister, along with the member for Shortland, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and, indeed, Senator Penny Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We've gone on a very successful trip to the Pacific. No-one put their body on the line more than I did on that trip. Just google my name and the Federated States of Micronesia and you will see that sakau is a potent brew!</para>
<para>I was very pleased that the government answered the cross-party call to provide more assistance for Kenya and the Horn of Africa, which has endured five failed rain seasons. When you've been to the remote areas of Kenya and you speak to the local villagers there about their needs and wants, they very much value Australian agricultural expertise. I have to say that I was absolutely impressed with the number of women going into agriculture and the number of women who were apiarists and had lifted that side of agriculture such that it was providing great domestic supplies and a great potential export for Kenya, despite the failed climate and despite everything that was being thrown at them. Times have been troubled in that area of the world, and I was pleased that, when the delegation returned, Minister Wong saw fit to increase the amount of assistance on the back of the letter co-signed by coalition and government members. It was good bipartisan politics.</para>
<para>I have been disappointed with the government's response to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. The PALM scheme was introduced in April 2022 during the Morrison coalition government. It replaced the Seasonal Workers Program which the Gillard government had introduced in 2012 and the Pacific Labour Scheme under the Turnbull administration in 2018. The scheme allows Australian businesses to hire workers through nine Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste, but the government finally came to the table—kicking and screaming, I might add, on the back of losing a lot of the PALM workers—to provide a more even range of work availability with an average of 120 hours over four weeks. It needs to be across eight to 12 weeks. That's what the stakeholders tell me. My question to the minister is: will you do that to bring it in line with the horticultural award?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Six months ago, Australia voted at the United Nations, with 152 other countries, for a ceasefire in the conflict in Gaza. I was in the Middle East at the time on a visit to the region that included Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and, of course, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. While Australia is not a central player in this conflict, on this visit I used Australia's respected voice to speak to countries who do have influence in the region to explain Australia's call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. I called for all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and I reiterated calls for rapid, safe and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian relief to Gaza. I also made clear Australia's expectation for hostages taken by Hamas as part of the 7 October attacks to be released immediately and unconditionally.</para>
<para>The human suffering we have seen in Gaza in the six months since then is intolerable. The war must end, and every day of delay means more deaths and more suffering. The World Food Programme has warned that there is already a full-blown famine in the north of Gaza, and these conditions are rapidly spreading to the south. More than half of Gaza's population of 2.3 million have fled to Rafah, where they have been seeking shelter.</para>
<para>Against this setting, Israeli military operations in Rafah have caused the deaths of innocent civilians—men, women and children—that have been witnessed by the world. Large-scale military operations in densely populated areas risk further devastation and even more civilian casualties. That's why we and the global community have repeatedly told the Netanyahu government: 'Listen to the world. Do not go down this path.'</para>
<para>Australians are rightly horrified by what they've seen in this conflict, and there is significant trauma and tension in our own community as a result of what Australians witnessed on their TV screens and on their phones during the 7 October attacks and the conflict that has followed. These are serious times that call for serious leadership. Despite this, in recent weeks we've seen the Greens deliberately using misleading conspiracy theories to further inflame tensions.</para>
<para>The government has made it clear repeatedly that Australia has not provided weapons or ammunition to Israel since the start of the conflict. This week in Senate estimates, Defence officials have further confirmed that, despite the deliberately misleading and inflammatory claims being made by the Greens on social media and in this parliament and by the Leader of the Greens on the <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> program, the $1.5 million in exports to Israel in February, a figure regularly cited by the Greens this year, was actually Australian Defence Force equipment going overseas for manufacture before subsequently returning to Australia for use.</para>
<para>Since the start of this conflict, the Greens have sought to make up direct connections between Australia and the crisis in Gaza to elevate the stakes of their domestic political campaigning. In doing so, they've made themselves wilfully ignorant of the truth, because misleading conspiracy theories are better fuel for the partisan political strategy than the reality. There are actively constructing a false reality with alternative facts designed to exploit real distress and cause real harm. We've seen in other countries how destructive this approach is.</para>
<para>Many people in Australia who are understandably deeply distressed by Gaza are exercising their right to peaceful protest, but the Greens' misleading campaign seeks to manipulate legitimate concerns to incite political conflict, to reproduce the conflict for their own benefit. The Greens' incitement is seeing some peaceful protests become violent and aggressive. Greens social media pages are collaborating with social media pages that call for the death of political opponents or call on people to stop condemning 7 October. Other people speak at protests at which there are signs calling for death for their political opponents. It might be in the interests of Greens politicians to use misinformation to inflame and divide the Australian community, but it's not in the interests of our democracy or of the unity of our country.</para>
<para>Australians want their leaders to bring the community together in these serious and difficult times. We need to show the maturity necessary to listen to each other and to try to understand rather than to shout at each other and abuse those with different perspectives. We need more empathy and respect and less contempt and conspiracy theories. The Australian government is not a central player in the conflict in Gaza, but we've used our respected voice to help build the conditions necessary for peace.</para>
<para>Our government recognises that the only way to break the cycle of violence is through a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace and security within internationally-recognised borders, in their own state. The only way we will achieve this is through peace-building between the parties. Politicians can't say they're for peace in Gaza if they reproduce the conflict at home.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 28 May 2024, the question is that the proposed expenditure for the Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio be agreed to, and I put that question.</para>
<para>Proposed expenditure agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being approximately 7.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and further consideration of the bill will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:36</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>