2024-06-25 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 25 June 2024

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

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Days And Hours Of Meeting 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson For the information of members, looking at the speaking list for this week, at this stage I don't think we'll have to sit late tonight or tomorrow night. If that suddenly changes, I'll come back and report to the House. But we should work on the basis that it will be the ordinary hours of sittings for this week. BILLS 1 BILLS Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024, Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024, Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 1

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024

Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024; Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024; and Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024 and Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 12:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) the House meeting at 11.30 am on Monday, 1 July and, following presentation of any petitions or report from the Standing Committee on Petitions, committee and delegation business and private Members' business proceeding until 12 noon; (2) the Federation Chamber meeting at 12 noon on Monday, 1 July and, following 30 minutes of constituency statements irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House, committee and delegation business and private Members' business proceeding until 1.30 pm; (3) the order of business in the Federation Chamber on Thursday, 4 July being as follows: (a) the Federation Chamber meeting at 9.30 am; (b) Members' three minute constituency statements for 30 minutes, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House; (c) consideration of committee and delegation business, and private Members' business as determined by the Selection Committee; and (d) adjournment debate to commence no later than 12.30 pm; (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. For the information of members, this relates to the swearing-in ceremony of the Governor-General. Because that would be happening when private members' business is on, we have found another occasion later in the week to make sure that private members' business is still able to take effect. That's the import of the motion. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 2 Membership 2 12:03 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Payman had been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Senator Darmanin has been appointed a member of the committee; Senator Grogan had been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Senator Darmanin had been appointed a member of the committee; Senator Darmanin had been appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme; and Senator Grogan had been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and Senator Darmanin had been appointed a member of the committee. BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Rearrangement 2 12:04 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring: (1) private Members' business order of the day No. 27 relating to the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 being called on immediately; (2) debate on the second reading of the bill continuing for a period of no longer than one hour, with the time for each speech limited to 10 minutes; (3) questions then being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; (4) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with: (a) one question to be put on all government amendments; (b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments; (c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and (d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to; (5) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and (6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. Last sitting week, I sought to bring this bill on for consideration by the House and it was voted down. This week, I'm again seeking to bring it on for consideration, because the situation on university campuses has deteriorated even further and we must have a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus up and running before second semester begins in July. There have been two major developments since this House last met. Firstly, we have more evidence of the increase in antisemitism on campus since the 7 October terrorist attacks. We know campus antisemitism is not new. The problem of campus antisemitism before 7 October was identified by an Australian Jewish students' survey released in August. It found that 64 per cent of Australian Jewish university students experienced antisemitism on campus and that 19 per cent stayed away because of antisemitism. The massive increase in campus antisemitism since 7 October 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, and academics denying that the rapes on 7 October even occurred. The failure of university leaders to deal properly with antisemitism include: not dealing with encampments; vice chancellors implying that hate-filled protests are just the price Jews have to pay for free speech and a collective statement from 39 university chancellors that was so weak it didn't even mention the words 'Jew' or 'antisemitism'. Last week, a new Monash University report, Australian Jews in the shadow of war, found that in the five weeks after the 7 October terrorist attacks, more than two-thirds of Australian Jewish university students experienced hostility from other students on campus. It found 43 per cent of Jewish Australians aged 18 to 29 said they'd personally experienced insult or harassment because they're Jewish and, disturbingly, that 71 per cent of those surveyed said they had not reported an antisemitic incident to any authority. As we know, it has got much worse since November last year. The second major development has been the capitulation by Sydney university, Australia's oldest university, to a group led by Hizb ut-Tahrir, who were involved in organising the encampments. Hizb ut-Tahrir is an extremist Islamist organisation; it's an organisation which praised and celebrated the 7 October terrorist attacks. Their supporters organised gatherings in Australia the day after 7 October and said that 7 October was a day of pride. One of the Hizb ut-Tahrir organisers, a regular at the University of Sydney encampment, wrote that Muslims should continue resisting until Israel is completely wiped off the map from the river to the sea. Hizb ut-Tahrir is listed as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, Germany and several Muslim nations, and the Albanese government should again consider its listing. To get a sense of who we're talking about, let me quote the words of Tom Tugendhat, the British Minister for Security, in prescribing Hizb ut-Tahrir. He said: I am a champion of freedom of speech, … Free speech includes neither the promotion of terrorism nor the celebration of terrorist acts. It is not acceptable to describe Hamas as the "heroes" of Palestine or the events of 7 October as a "long-awaited victory". It is not acceptable to refer to the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer as "a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews". It is not acceptable to call for so-called Muslim armies to rise up and carry out similar acts. Hizb ut-Tahrir has antisemitism at its very core. It rejects democracy and engages in vile homophobia. As an organisation, it does not just reject British values; it seeks to undermine them. We will not let groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir abuse our freedoms. We will never tolerate the promotion or encouragement of terrorism. We have zero tolerance for antisemitism. Hizb ut-Tahrir must be proscribed. To that, I say hear, hear. Despite its status as an extremist organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir is now playing an outsized role at Sydney university. It was one of the organisers of the Sydney university encampments. Sydney university has known that Hizb ut-Tahrir has been on its campus since at least 6 May. When the university gave notice that it would shut down the encampments a couple of weeks ago, every other group, including Socialist Alternative, packed up. But Hizb ut-Tahrir refused to move. Boasting on Instagram, they said that resilience had worked in their favour across many fronts—most particularly being the catalyst for negotiations with the uni. On Friday night the Hizb ut-Tahrir group announced the terms of their negotiations with the university. They said it was 'a new opening which will allow us to continue forwarding the cause in more effective ways'. Most disturbingly, they managed to extract a concession from Sydney university to set up a working group to review its defence investments and research and grant the protesters a seat at the table. Remember, this is the group that had been the key organiser of the Sydney university encampments, designed to intimidate Jewish staff and Jewish students and disrupt learning and teaching on campus. These were places where chants like 'intifada' and 'from the river to the sea' were spouted while the university sat on its hands, saying this was just the price Jewish students had to pay for free speech. That's bad enough, but this is now a major national security issue at our oldest university. It's an extraordinary capitulation. At a time when the AUKUS agreements require the focus and attention of our best and brightest minds, Sydney university is allowing an extremist group—an organisation listed as a terrorist organisation by our oldest ally—to run the ruler over every defence agreement. In such an environment, why would any defence organisation or anyone engaged with AUKUS have anything to do with Sydney university? This would be a massive loss for our oldest university and for the city of Sydney, just to appease a few Jew-hating extremists. But the appeasement hasn't worked. Hizb ut-Tahrir have already announced that they're planning future activities to put pressure on the university and have not ruled out a further encampment. Instead of exercising their powers to move on the encampments weeks ago, Sydney university has set a terrible precedent. It's a signal to anyone that the more intimidatory your conduct the better the outcome you'll get from the university. Sydney university's actions have destroyed their relationship with the Jewish community. The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies president, David Ossip, has said: Despite assurances to the Jewish community that any offer to the encampment was off the table and that the university would be pursuing alternate options to clear the encampment, the university instead reopened negotiations with a group dominated by Hizb ut-Tahrir. …   …   … … the university … sought to bury the story on a Friday night (the Jewish Shabbat) and allowed the radical protesters to first announce the deal. …   …   … This deal is not just about 'transparency' as the university claims. It goes beyond the terms agreed by any other institution and effectively gives Hizb ut-Tahrir influence over the university's research and investment activities. Be in no doubt—whilst the university may be enjoying its new collaboration with Hizb ut-Tahrir, the university's relationship with the Jewish community is in absolute tatters. Now I'm hearing reports that Jewish staff are resigning from Sydney university, and Jewish students are seeking to transfer. In such an environment, the government cannot just sit on their hands and do nothing. They cannot proceed with their mickey mouse inquiry led by the Human Rights Commission, an organisation which has systemic racism problems when it comes to Jews. Peter Wertheim from the ECAJ has said that, sadly, the Jewish community cannot have confidence in the inquiry to be conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission. That's why Jewish organisations are backing this bill—because it's the only way to deal with the unprecedented level of campus antisemitism. What happens on campus matters because it's where the next generation of leaders are formed. What happens on campus sets the tone for the rest of our society. The failure of university leaders and the government to take this issue seriously is leading to worse antisemitism in other parts of our country. Despite the occasional condemnation from the government, it's now almost nine months since October 7. It's a time in which we've witnessed the unprecedented rise in antisemitism here in Australia. But, despite assurances to the Jewish community, we've seen no new directions to the police and law enforcement agencies to crack down on antisemitism, and no standalone inquiries established, no new laws and no new institutions to deal with antisemitism. Instead, we've seen the most disgraceful and inflammatory language from the Greens, and we've seen what amount to terrorist attacks on MPs' electorate offices—in particular, the disgraceful attack on the office of my good friend the member for Macnamara. These acts are a result of the antisemitism being left unchecked in our community. But there's something every member of the House can do today. You can vote to consider this bill as a matter of urgency. We can vote to pass this bill. Semester 2 cannot start without there being a place where Jewish staff and Jewish students can bring their evidence of the antisemitism that is out of control on our campuses—on a confidential basis and free from the risk of reprisals—and a place where university leaders can be cross-examined and held to account for their repeated failures to deal with this massive problem and a complete attack on our social cohesion. I commend this motion to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 12:14 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I second this motion in support of my good friend, the member for Berowra. There comes a time in every parliamentarian's life in this building where they need to stand up and take a principled position, and today is such a day—as it was when this motion was last put to the chamber. All members of parliament have an opportunity to do the right thing today. We have ventilated the horrors and evils that took place on 7 October last year when 1,200 innocent Israelis were killed—they were slaughtered—by Hamas terrorists, and what we have seen since that day is an appalling demonstration of support for those same Hamas terrorists on the grounds of our universities across this country. The least of which was at the University of Sydney, headed by the vice-chancellor, Mark Scott, the former chairperson of the ABC. Last Friday night, the Sydney Muslim Students Association held a press conference at the University of Sydney where they proudly announced that the University of Sydney's leadership—that is, Mark Scott—had capitulated and had agreed to the demands of the Sydney Muslim Students Association, which has a direct association with Hizb ut-Tahrir. These demands include that they will have access to and a seat at the bargaining table to determine and have some form of oversight over what defence contracts the University of Sydney have entered into and will enter into. As the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I've got to say that I have immense concerns about the University of Sydney's decision to allow people who are involved or associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir to understand or have any insight whatsoever into defence industry contracts that are entered into by this country or the University of Sydney. The home secretary of the United Kingdom, James Cleverly, spoke about Hizb ut-Tahrir. When the UK listed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a listed terrorist organisation, he said: Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites supports for them will face consequences. Yet, is Hizb ut-Tahrir a listed terrorist organisation in Australia? No, it is not. Why isn't it? Why has this government not listed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation? This government continues to fail Jews across this country who are standing up for what is right. Every member in this House—the teals, independents, the Labor Party—has an opportunity to stand up today and support the member for Berowra's private member's bill, which will see a judicial inquiry entered into, where the universities will have nowhere to run with their appalling conduct and the appalling support that they have provided to those who would seek to further antisemitism in this country. 12:19 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I recognise, in this debate, the work of the member for Berowra, a man who is respected and admired by people on both sides of this chamber. Can I say that— The SPEAKER 53517   The minister will pause, and I'll hear from the manager on a point of order. 12:20 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move that the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be put. Under standing order 133(b), on Tuesdays, any division called prior to 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance, except for a division called upon on a motion to suspend any standing or other order of the House moved by a minister during this period. So, if a division is required, the division will be deferred. We'll deal with that matter after the MPI. Debate adjourned. BILLS 5 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 5

Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024

Second Reading 5 12:22 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. These bills highlight several of Labor's major failures: a failure to meaningfully address surging rental prices and falling first homeownership across the country, a failure to provide regulatory certainty in the financial services sector, a failure to keep their promises of only to increase taxes on multinationals and a failure to support small and family businesses. Schedule 1 will create generous incentives to institutional investors to develop build-to-rent housing. Labor originally promised to add to rental supply through these reforms in the 2023 budget, announced more than a year ago—over 12 months ago. This legislation has faced significant delays, as well as criticism from the sector it is intended to support. Under Labor, rental prices around the country continue to surge. If you look at the last 12 months, from 2023 April to now, according to the ABS, rents have risen by almost eight per cent on average, nationally. Weekly rents are more expensive than they were in mid-2023 by $53. The national median rental price now exceeds $620 per week, with the regions experiencing the steepest increases. In the last two years, renters around the country have seen their rents go up considerably. In Australia, build-to-rent only makes up 0.2 per cent of the housing market, and build-to-rent developments have a long lead time. It won't address the serious rental supply shortages experienced across the country right now. Fifty-five per cent of the units proposed are planned for Melbourne, and the bulk of the rental pipeline will be owned and managed by foreign investors. With this build-to-rent policy, Labor has prioritised corporate home ownership over individual ownership. Unlike the Albanese government, the coalition remain steadfast in our commitment to continue to be the party of home ownership and first home buyers, and we have a proven track record to back this up. We want Australians owning homes. Under Labor, the percentage of first home buyers entering the market has dropped. The ABS stated in 2020 that it was 23 per cent, declining to 19 per cent in 2023 under Labor. What is it now? It's probably lower again. The Property Council of Australia has warned that 'the detail of the legislation doesn't live up to the government's intended goals' and that 'this legislation must be fixed'. The Real Estate Institute of Australia says 'build-to-rent will take time to come online and our shortages are now'. Finding somewhere to live is getting harder under this Labor-Greens government, and this significantly delayed and ineffective build-to-rent proposal isn't going to make it easier. The coalition will oppose schedule 1 and move amendments to remove it from this bill. Schedule 2 of this bill imposes new regulation on buy-now pay-later providers. We understand that the buy-now pay-later sector is generally supportive of these reforms. There are some outstanding issues that have not been addressed in the drafting, and we expect that these will be considered and dealt with through the Senate's committee inquiry on this bill. Buy-now pay-later products play an important role in helping people manage their finances and smooth out expenses. It has provided a good alternative to higher-cost forms of credit like payday loans and credit cards. The friction and costs of new regulation must be balanced with ensuring that these products remain accessible and consumers have choice. We agree that regulation to protect consumers must be scalable and proportionate, reflecting the different risk profile of these products. However, there have been significant delays in drafting this legislation and failures to address some concerns raised by buy-now pay-later providers. The Assistant Treasurer promised these reforms would be introduced into parliament last year. The settled policy was announced by the Assistant Treasurer over 12 months ago. As we have seen time and time again under the Assistant Treasurer, he overpromises and underdelivers. These delays have caused regulatory uncertainty for the buy-now pay-later sector and put vulnerable consumers at risk. Over the last year, we've seen consolidation in the sector, with several providers leaving the market or scaling down their operations. What has happened here reflects a broader trend of delays in key financial services reform and a lack of prioritisation of them by Labor. Buy now pay later is a success story of homegrown innovation in financial services. It supports over 120,000 Australian jobs. It adds over $19 billion in economic activity each year, and 5.2 million Australians actively choose to use buy-now pay-later products. The average value of a buy-now pay-later transaction is just $132, and most consumer usage is concentrated on lower value purchases. Unfortunately, innovation in financial services is not a priority for the Albanese Labor government. We are unlikely to see under the Albanese Labor government the next Afterpay or the next Zip emerge and succeed in Australia. Unlike Labor, growing the Australian digital economy and supporting innovation in financial services, such as buy now pay later, was a key priority under the former federal coalition government. The former coalition government had a minister dedicated to supporting these innovative firms to succeed, scale and export internationally. We created a regulatory sandbox, agreed fintech bridges with key trading partners, and funded targeted trade and investment programs. We did a major review of the payments systems and implemented the world-leading consumer data right. These settings provided an environment where our financial technology businesses like Afterpay and Zip could flourish, grow internationally and provide significant value to the Australian economy. Under Labor, the next wave of innovative firms is struggling to access capital amid the regulatory uncertainty created by the slow, delayed or deprioritised reform processes which have become the norm. This is despite a ballooning Public Service and a significant allocation of additional resources for the Treasury to develop legislation. These buy-now pay-later firms are now facing fresh uncertainty. The Assistant Treasurer is now refusing to sign off on expanding the consumer data right to the non-bank lending sector, which includes buy-now pay-later firms. Last August, in his own words, the Assistant Treasurer said, 'Having the consumer data right available in non-bank lending may make it quicker and easier for buy-now pay-later providers to make the checks that will be necessary to comply with the new scalable responsible lending obligations proposed for their industry.' Instead, what's happened? He's left the industry in limbo for the better part of a year. The non-bank lending sector don't know when or even if it will happen. This is just poor prioritisation yet again, and it shows that the government is more about announcements than delivery. Schedule 4 of this bill is the next stage of Labor's chaotic attempt to implement its misguided multinational tax agenda. These proposals were originally supposed to be introduced to parliament last September, but embarrassingly, again, they were pulled, with last-minute amendments in response to significant stakeholder backlash, including from the United States embassy. At the time, Labor promised to do further work to align the proposed public reporting standards with the well-established European Union framework, but they have come back with a very similar reporting regime that goes much further than the EU and does little to address widespread concerns from the business community. While exemption processes have been included for firms to prevent information being made public, this is only provided on an annual basis. This is another botched and delayed process that shows that the government do not know how to work with business, they don't know how to manage the economy and they are pursuing the wrong priorities. These proposals have wide application across sectors and risk blowing out the cost of doing business in Australia. And what happens when the cost of doing business goes up? There are fewer jobs and there are higher expenses for Australians and customers. International manufacturers and businesses have already signalled that the impact of this regime will cause them to shift jobs and investment offshore, out of Australia. The business community has no confidence that this government can consult, and no confidence that this government listens, that's for sure. This country-by-country reporting proposal also won't hide Labor's broken promises on tax. Before the last election, Labor promised only to increase taxes on multinationals. But we've now seen Labor's new doubling of taxes on superannuation balances, capturing one in 10 Australians over time and young Australians earning average wages today. They are taxing unrealised capital gains, which hasn't been done before. All of that wasn't spoken about by the Prime Minister before the last election; indeed it wasn't. Labor has also increased taxes on franking credits, banking half a billion in taxes from Australian companies, Australian retirees and Australian charities. They've also increased taxes as part of their stage 3 revamp, which they said they wouldn't do. The Prime Minister said before the last election, rock solid, 'My word is my bond; we won't change stage 3.' But then what did he do? He killed the bracket creep that we had in place—30c up to $200,000—and reintroduced a 37 per cent rate for people earning over $135,000. He also brought down the 45 per cent rate to $190,000. The Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and the Labor government say one thing before an election and then say something completely different. Their actions are completely different once they're in government. In relation to the instant asset tax write off, schedule 7 of this bill continues Labor's attempts to decimate the instant asset write-off, taking it back to levels not seen for five or six years and depriving 26,500 medium-size businesses of access to accelerated depreciation. How many Australians do you think work in 26,500 medium businesses? 'A lot' is the answer. The instant asset tax write-off would help those businesses every day with their cashflow. I saw it during COVID. I saw businesses in my own electorate that could instantly write-off new equipment. You know what? A lot of those businesses are in manufacturing, and we've seen manufacturing jobs in this country fall by 10 per cent. Don't believe a word of the Albanese Labor government when they say, 'We want Australian made, and we will bring back manufacturing'. It's all fibs. Ten per cent of jobs have gone in two years. Under their proposals, because they govern for unions, it will only get worse. Labor's proposal would limit the instant asset tax write-off to $20,000. It was unlimited during COVID, but they're winding it all the way back to $20,000. How will that help manufacturers? It won't. It will only provide an additional 12-month extension to the scheme. It should be ongoing—continuous. We must also remember Labor's existing bill to implement the instant asset tax write-off for the 2023-24 financial year has been stuck in limbo with just days to go before the end of the financial year. Labor failed to prioritise its passage through the parliament and blocked coalition amendments for a bigger tax cut to small and family businesses, which benefits not just those small and family businesses but all the workers in those small and family businesses and their customers. That's because we know that, when small and family businesses have less costs, those costs aren't passed onto consumers in the middle of the cost-of-living crisis that's happened in the last two years since this government was elected. These delays might mean millions of businesses are unable to purchase and install assets in time to claim the instant asset write-off for this financial year. From 1 July, the $20,000 write-off threshold will drop to the default of just $1,000. How ridiculous. It should be a permanent, ongoing instant asset tax write-off for small and family businesses. The minister should make this an absolute priority. The coalition's position, as outlined in the budget in reply, is to extend the value of assets eligible for the instant asset write-off to up to $30,000, lifting it 50 per cent further than the government wants to and making it permanent. We should absolutely make it permanent. Our position would simplify depreciation for millions of small businesses by cutting red tape, boosting investment in productive assets and lowering business costs and prices. It would provide small businesses with regulatory certainty and, importantly, ensure the government can't leave extending the scheme until the last minute, as it has done this year. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are over 2.5 million small businesses across the country. That's wonderful. Millions of small businesses are impacted by Labor's bad decisions on the instant asset tax write-off. That's the issue. This is a government that does not look after small businesses. Australians have lost confidence in the Albanese Labor government. That's not just the small businesses but everyday consumers in my electorate and right around the country. It is failing to stop surging rental prices on top of surging house repayments and gas, electricity and insurance prices. And the government is failing to stop falling first home ownership rates. It is failing to provide regulatory certainty and support innovation in financial services. It's failing to keep its promises on tax and it's failing to support small businesses and families struggling under Labor's cost-of-living crisis. I move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House notes: (1) that the former Government consistently delivered lower taxes for small business, families, and implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance; (2) the Government voted eight times against delivering a bigger tax cut to small business in last year's Instant Asset Write Off; (3) the Government's last multinational tax bill was so badly designed it taxed Australian companies; (4) that since the election, Australians are paying 20 per cent more income tax and the Government has banked over $60 billion in bracket creep; (5) that despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Government has broken promises to raise taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, personal income tax, and to end small business tax incentives; and (6) that the Government's housing policy is failing to meet its supply targets and supporting forever renting, not home ownership". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Fletcher L6B I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024 8

Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024

Second Reading 8 12:42 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024. I confidently predict that the contents of this bill will have almost zero practical impact on the creative and artistic life of this nation. This bill establishes two new parts of Creative Australia and expands the governance structure to provide more support to Australia's First Nations arts and literature sectors. The bill also outlines the responsibilities of First Nations Arts and Writing Australia together with their respective governing bodies, the First Nations Board and the Writing Australia Council. The background to this bill is that Labor made an election promise in 2022 to introduce the much-hyped National Cultural Policy. Two years later we are here in this space, with Labor only now getting around to introducing legislation giving effect to elements of their policy. As part of the National Cultural Policy to date, we've seen the name of the Australia Council change to Creative Australia. For those who liked the term 'Australia Council', do not fear; it continues to be used as the name for the board of Creative Australia. I hope everybody has got that and I hope that's crystal clear. With Creative Australia, the government committed to establishing four new bureaucratic edifices within the overarching structure of Creative Australia. Two of those, Music Australia and Creative Workplaces, have already been established. This legislation establishes the two remaining bureaucratic edifices, with the First Nations body to take effect on 1 July 2024, assuming this legislation passes in time, and that will mean it comes into effect more than two years after Labor came to government. The Writing Australia body will take effect on 1 July 2025, coming into effect more than three years after Labor came to government. The bill before the House this afternoon will establish the boards of these two bodies: the Writing Australia board with nine board members and the First Nations board with 10 board members. These boards will report to the Australia Council board, which is another board that can have up to 14 members. In practice this means, for example, that the officials who work within the Writing Australia unit of Creative Australia will be in the fortunate position of having up to 23 board members overseeing their activities, and there's no doubt in my mind that that will cause spirits to soar amongst that particular group of officials. This bill is entirely consistent with the central overriding principle of Burkean arts administration: the single most important policy objective is to increase the number of bureaucrats and officials charged with overseeing artistic and creative endeavours in Australia. That is, of course—I hardly need to add—a very different thing to delivering specific measures that actually increase the vigour, extent and dynamism of artistic and creative activities in Australia. The Albanese Labor government likes to boast about its support and its enthusiasm for the arts, but, when you look at the reality, they have sadly failed to substantiate words with action. The inexplicably slow and piecemeal establishment of the four bureaucratic edifices within Creative Australia is not the only aspect of arts policy where we have seen a go-slow of a kind that 1970s union leaders would look on with admiration. In the last budget, Labor promised to attract additional international investment in the Australian screen sector to provide additional domestic employment and training opportunities by increasing the location offset to 30 per cent. Twelve months on, this Labor government has still not given effect to that commitment. Industry stakeholders tell me that Labor is keeping them in a state of uncertainty, and investors, unsurprisingly, are holding back from committing investments, as they wait to see whether the government will in fact pass legislation to give effect to its commitment. Bizarrely, Labor has chosen to combine the legislative provisions to increase the location offset into a bill that contains other unrelated and controversial propositions dealing with financial advisors. The coalition stands ready to help Labor fix the mess it has created when it comes to the location offset. The coalition has written to the government to advise that, should the government strip out the unrelated and controversial parts from the bill, the coalition will then commit to supporting the efficient passage of the bill through the parliament so we can get the increased location offset in place as quickly as possible. We have also seen a mysterious delay in the report of the parliamentary inquiry into Labor's much-hyped national cultural policy. The Senate committee conducting the review was due to issue its report on 20 June this year; that has now been delayed to 26 March next year. This nine-month delay suggests that the policy is falling well short of the breathless hype which accompanied it. All of this comes at a time when the arts sector is hurting. Thanks to the home-grown inflation and cost-of-living crisis which this inept Labor government has created, it is unsurprising that popular music festivals have been cancelled with their operating costs becoming unsustainable and with audiences finding it ever more challenging to afford ticket prices. We see a steady drumbeat of announcements of festivals being cancelled, including the 2023 addition of the Falls Festival, Valleyways, Coastal Jam and Vintage Vibes, and the pausing of Hobart's iconic Dark Mofo for 2024. We have seen venues like Brisbane's The Zoo close their doors. This is a sector crying out for help, but their pleas are falling on deaf ears. As one writer observed recently in the Conversation, the Australian live music industry is in crisis. The coalition believes that arts funding should, as much as possible, go to support artists, performers and arts workers—backstage crew, ushers, front of house—all of the people who work to deliver a great show for those who are there to see it. Whether it's performing arts, visual arts or literature, getting the money to the front line is a very good principle and a principle almost entirely absent from the policy initiatives in the arts portfolio under this Labor government and this minister. The former coalition government understood the vital importance of the arts sector, and we matched our words with funding. The historical record shows that record Commonwealth arts funding was achieved under the previous coalition government—more than $1 billion of funding for the arts sector in 2021-22. Labor's budget this year, as for their previous two budgets, has again fallen short of that high watermark achieved under the coalition. Under the former coalition government, $200 million was allocated through our RISE Fund, supporting 541 shows, performances, festivals and events around the country. Indeed, when Labor came to government there was a further $20 million in the RISE Fund available to spend, but the new arts minister, rather than spending it, cancelled the program. When we were in government, we increased the Producer Offset to 30 per cent for television and streaming productions. We committed over $400 million under the Location Incentive, bringing a pipeline of over 30 global screen productions to Australia. All of that was consistent with the principle that we thought, and continue to think, should be the central principle of arts administration in Australia: getting the funding to those who need it on the front line, to those who use the funding to deliver shows, events, productions, festivals, rather than directing yet more funding to bureaucrats in Canberra. Let me conclude by stating the coalition's position in relation to this bill. We believe it is entirely inconsequential. We believe it will make no practical difference in the extent and vigour of creative and artistic endeavour in Australia. We believe it is the kind of legislation you come up with when you want to pretend you have a meaningful agenda but in fact you do not. We will not be opposing this bill, but we do not believe it is the kind of thing that an effective arts minister would be concentrating his attention and energy on. Debate adjourned. Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 9

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Second Reading 9 12:53 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. At the outset, I will make it clear that the coalition supports the intention behind this bill. This is a bill that seeks to deal with the harmful consequences of artificial intelligence generated sexual material. In many ways the proliferation of artificial intelligence creates tremendous possibilities, but it is a technology that comes with risks. It is our role to consider those risks and adapt our laws to deal with them. The risks we are dealing with here arise when the tremendous capabilities of artificial intelligence intersect with the capacity to inflict harm online. It is a difficult issue. We know that artificial intelligence can produce extraordinary material. Many of us will have seen the photorealistic images that artificial intelligence can create showing places that don't exist or events that never happened. If I were to go online now and give this speech into an artificial intelligence voice generator, I could choose to have it delivered in the voice of Winston Churchill or Frank Sinatra. Some would say that would not be the highest and best use of that technology, but I could. But the technology can obviously be misused, and, in the online world, the potential adverse impacts are massively amplified, so it is appropriate that, from time to time, we revisit our laws to confirm whether they are fit for purpose. This bill repeals existing offences laws that make it an offence to transmit private sexual material with intent to menace, harass or cause offence. In their place, it establishes new offences for transmitting sexual material without consent. This includes material created or altered using technology. So the immediate question is: what is the problem that these laws fix? To understand that issue, it is worth spending a few moments looking at the current laws. The current laws represent the outcome of many years work. They were passed by the previous coalition government but, importantly, reflect the position taken in this parliament, which was supported by parties across the political spectrum. The core issue that the current laws deal with is the use of a carriage service to disseminate sexual material in a way that is intrusive and damaging. Whatever the term used—'nonconsensual sharing of intimate images', 'image based abuse', 'revenge porn' or 'transmission of private sexual material'—the common thread is that our laws should not permit carriage services to be used to distribute sexual material in a way that is unacceptable to the community, and that is important because, when we turn to this deepfake sexual material bill, we see that it also addresses that same core issue. This bill repeals existing laws and replaces them with new ones that largely do the same thing, and that raises these questions: how did we get here, what has changed and why are these new laws necessary? To turn to how we got here, the Commonwealth Criminal Code has, for some 20 years, included provisions that make it an offence to use a carriage service to menace someone, to harass them or to cause offence, and you can broadly interpret 'carriage service' as meaning the internet. These provisions are in division 474 of the Criminal Code and are broad offences, designed to apply in a wide range of circumstances. Nevertheless, as technology has changed, we have updated our laws. In 2018, when the coalition was in government, the parliament passed the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill. The bill was designed to address an obvious gap in the regulatory framework that existed at that time and to make something highly desirable to compliment the criminal law—that is, an effective civil take-down regime. It was an acknowledgement that, in many cases, what a victim wants is for the offensive material to be taken down. Victims welcome criminal penalties, but they don't want to wait for a lengthy criminal trial. Overwhelmingly, what they want is to have the material taken down as quickly as possible. At the time we introduced the bill, we expressly acknowledged that it addressed a shortfall or a gap in the existing regulatory framework and it was designed to complement the criminal law. We were also very clear that the Commonwealth was concurrently progressing work with the states and territories to develop consistent national principles concerning the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That work in the criminal law space was methodical, careful and painstaking and was done on a cooperative basis nationally. The Labor Party, then in opposition, did try to front run on the issue and tried to push ahead with amendments that were ultimately found to be problematic. At the time, we were upfront in saying that what the Labor Party was doing had the effect of delaying both the take-down scheme and the updates to criminal law. But, ultimately, it is a matter of record that Labor and the coalition worked together, along with the crossbench, to produce a regime that established not just civil take-downs but also updated criminal offences. These laws were endorsed across the political spectrum. These laws established take-down powers for intimate images. In terms of criminal offences, they established the existing offences that deal with the dissemination of private sexual material online. These are laws that the Labor member for Lyons told the parliament reflect 'Labor's clear and longstanding position'. Importantly, they are also laws that deal with fake images. It is worth reading from the explanatory materials which explain the offences introduced in 2018, which said: The definition for private sexual material captures material that appears to depict a person engaged in sexual activity or a sexual pose. The use of the phrase 'appears to depict' is intended to capture material that has been altered or doctored to falsely portray a person in sexual activity or a sexual pose. For example, an image of a person's face taken from an innocuous image may be transposed onto an image of another person's body in a sexual pose. It is clear that the existing offences deal with private sexual material that is doctored, fake or simply untrue. In other words, the existing law says it is an offence to create a fake sexual image of a person, whether you do it using artificial intelligence or through your own Photoshop skills, and then distribute it online where you would ordinarily expect the image to be private. That is the current law. So what does this bill do? As I mentioned previously, it takes the strange approach of repealing the existing offences and replacing them with new offences that appear to do the same thing. The immediate question this raises is: why? Why is Labor departing from laws which, at the time, it described as reflecting Labor's 'clear and longstanding position'. References to deepfakes and the power of generative artificial intelligence do not provide an explanation. The current laws deal with fake images just as these proposed new laws would do. The closest thing we can find stating a reason for what Labor has decided to do here is a single paragraph in the explanatory memorandum. It is a technical explanation. It is based on the fact that the existing offences relate to 'private sexual material', which is a defined term. It's defined to be sexual material in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The explanatory memorandum for this bill says: The issue that arises when dealing with such material under the current framework is that because the victim is not involved in the creation of the fictional 'deepfake' version of themselves, an expectation of privacy may not attach to the depiction of the victim. This issue does not arise with the new offences, which do not rely on this definition and instead turn on whether the person depicted in the material consents to its transmission. With respect, this is an argument that does not make sense. Firstly, it is contradicted by the explanatory materials for the existing laws. It could not have been made clearer that the existing laws deal with fake images that a victim has no role in creating. Secondly, it is not consistent with the approach taken in other Commonwealth legislation. Under the Privacy Act, we attach privacy obligations to facial images that identify a person. Why would we not do the same in the Criminal Code? Thirdly, the government has not pointed to any body of evidence that the existing laws are not working. It is not immediately apparent that these new laws cover any situation that is not already covered. Fourthly, if the technical concern about an expectation of privacy is the only justification for the new laws, why has the government not simply proposed a short provision which clarifies the existing law? Why not simply make clear that it is generally reasonable for a person to expect privacy for any sexual material that includes their likeness, whether it is deepfake material or not? The government is rightly concerned about deepfake sexual material. So is everyone. But being concerned about an issue is not the same thing as explaining why the existing law needs to change, and the government has not done an adequate or satisfactory job of providing that explanation. That brings me to the potential unintended consequences of this bill. It does have several strange features. For example, this bill says the new offences are based on the distribution of material without a person's consent. But this bill also repeals the definition of consent. That is a very strange thing to do. Right now, the law says, 'Consent means free and voluntary agreement.' The government is getting rid of that definition. Why? Is the government suggesting that consent to share deepfake sexual material can be implied? Can consent be understood from the circumstances? How do the offences work if a person withdraws their consent? And what does that mean when you go to prosecute these laws? Will we have victims being cross-examined about whether they consented to their image being used? These laws are also very broad. They apply to deepfakes but they also apply to true images and to obvious fakes like cartoons. Why? There are other questions: Do these new offences apply to historical figures? How do these laws interact with child pornography offences? Some of the interactions are unclear. It seems this law is drafted backwards. Under the current law, a prosecutor must show the material is offensive. There is no equivalent under the new law. Under the new law, it falls to the defendant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the material is acceptable. Why? More seriously, for these offences the government has changed the definition of 'recklessness' when it comes to consent. 'Recklessness' has a defined meaning that applies in almost every other part of the Criminal Code but not here. Why not? What are they capturing that they could not capture previously, and what are the consequences of that change? As I have said, the coalition supports the intention of this bill. We will not oppose the bill in this place. That's unsurprising. The underlying issue that this bill addresses is the same issue that we addressed with our 2018 legislation. The coalition agrees that the use of carriage services to distribute deepfake sexual material is a crime. That is why we made it a crime in our 2018 legislation. But we will ask that this bill be closely scrutinised, because we all have an interest in ensuring that whatever laws we end up with are fit for purpose. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 11

Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024

Second Reading 11 13:07 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced that Samantha Mostyn would take up the reins as Australia's 28th Governor-General on 1 July 2024, following on from the announced retirement of His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC, DSC. As section 3 of the Australian Constitution requires that 'The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office,' it is pertinent that the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is legislated prior to Ms Mostyn's swearing-in as Australia's 28th Governor-General next Monday. It is a longstanding practice that the Governor-General's salary is set slightly above the expected average annual salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court over the notional five-year term. The salary proposed in the bill sets a payment of $709,017 per annum for the Governor-General. The coalition will provide passage for this bill to ensure that this practice can be met. The coalition wishes Ms Mostyn the very best in her appointment and thanks His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC, DSC for his excellent service to our country. 13:08 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan The Greens oppose this bill. No other worker is getting a 43 per cent pay rise in this cost-of-living crisis. In fact, wages are still flatlining and women are still underpaid. Until all women get a 43 per cent pay rise, the incoming Governor-General should not. This is no reflection on our support or our respect for the appointment of Sam Mostyn as Governor-General. Whilst the Greens strongly believe we should be a republic, if we must have a representative of the monarch of Australia, Sam Mostyn is an inspired choice. It's wonderful to have another woman in that role and one so very strong on gender equality and financial security for women. Sam Mostyn's work with the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce was very impressive and provided many excellent recommendations to the government to actually improve women's equality. Not all of them did they listen to. In her previous role as chair of the WEET, Sam Mostyn championed paying women more in multiple recommendations—for example, seeking to raise the wages and improve the job quality of early childhood educators, including ensuring fair remuneration, access to professional development opportunities and mechanisms for career progression; elevating the status of care work and attracting a diverse and skilled workforce by valuing and adequately compensating care workers; ensuring that minimum and award wage-setting processes take into account what would be considered an appropriate living wage for employees; and ensuring adequate government funding to support living wages, decent work and the capacity to progress and develop in careers in, for example, the early childhood education and care sectors, aged care and disability support. These recommendations strongly suggest that the government invest in a pay rise for feminised industries in recognition of the historical undervaluation of their work. What wasn't recommended in those recommendations was an increase in the salary of the Governor-General. How can we support a $200,000 pay rise for the Governor-General, regardless of the person currently filling the role, when we're still drastically underpaying our lowest paid workers? The Greens oppose this bill, and we'll move a second reading amendment in the Senate for wage increases for all low-paid workers. We'll also move a second reading amendment in the Senate for Australia to become a republic. While previous Governor-General office holders have had their salary discounted because of their receipt of government—usually military—pensions, and the proposed salary for Ms Mostyn is in line with the convention to align it with the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court, it's still an egregiously large increase in salary. Without this bill, the incoming Governor-General will still be paid $495,000, the same as the previous male incumbent and more than all other preceding governors-general. What planet are we living on that I'm having to stand here and point out to this Labor government that a $200,000 pay rise for the Governor-General, putting them on $700,000 a year, is absolutely callous while millions of Australians struggle to afford their groceries or pay their bills? This is not a reflection on Sam Mostyn herself, but I'm sorry; no-one needs to be paid that much. Who else is getting a 43 per cent pay rise at the moment? It's an absolute insult to people struggling with the cost of living, coming from a government that is totally out of touch with what people are facing. It aligns the Governor-General with other overpaid executives and bureaucrats on taxpayer dime. The CEOs of corporatised government services like NBN and Australia Post are paid over $2 million a year while overseeing cuts to services and bungled rollouts. The Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock is on $1 million while she oversees interest rate rises that have caused so much pain to families across this country. The government has its priorities all wrong. This legislation is even being rushed through parliament. If only Labor showed a similar determination for fixing the housing crisis. The Greens oppose this obscene increase in salary for the Governor-General and will continue to fight for real cost-of-living relief for all Australians. 13:13 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth For the information of members who might have heard that last contribution, I want to outline a few facts about what is being done in this bill—something that's been passed by parliaments on average every five years with the appointment of a new Governor-General. I note that the proposed salary has been calculated by reference to the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. That is always the starting point. Where people are in receipt of other Commonwealth streamed forms of income, such as a military pension, there has been an adjustment by the parliament in setting the figure for the five-year term. That's been consistently applied for decades. I'd also note that this obligation is a constitutional obligation that sits upon members of parliament and has sat upon us for 123 years. It's in section 3 of the Constitution. It's an obligation that I urge all members to take seriously. I'd also note that the incoming Governor-General will only receive salary from this role, not from any military pensions. I would encourage everyone to recognise that. While some may have views about these figures, I'd be very uncomfortable breaking the longstanding convention, with reference to the Chief Justice of the High Court, that has been applied. I don't think it's appropriate for the parliament to go towards radical change, as proposed by some, when these are matters of the deepest of conventions and also a constitutional obligation upon the parliament. I note that the member for Canning outlined in his contribution that this is a constitutional obligation under section 3. He noted the long-standing practice of this place and the Senate in supporting the proposal that the government has put forward. Indeed, I'm sure people would have been surprised if any other proposal had been brought forward. I appreciate the sensible contribution from the coalition. I agree with the member for Ryan that Sam Mostyn is an inspired choice. It's been broadly welcomed by the Australian community, but I am disappointed that we've seen some looking for the politics on this. Had we not proposed this, I'm sure the Greens party would have come to the alternative conclusion that, somehow, we were cutting the salary of the incoming Governor-General to a level less than that of the existing Governor-General. I'll note that, on average, we have governors-general receiving a contribution equivalent to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. In my final comments before we hopefully move on to the third reading, I, too, would like to thank the outgoing Governor-General the Hon. David Hurley AC, CVO, DSC (Rtd). Yesterday, in the Members Hall, we saw a great reflection of his contribution to this nation—an excellent portrait that shows his true love of this country—and we had so many people there who have been grateful for his service to this country. He's had a lifetime of service to the Australian people, and I want to thank him and, equally, Linda Hurley and all of their family for the contribution they make. Stepping into these roles is never easy, and I note that he did so after a 42-year military career and after service to the people of New South Wales as Governor. He presided as Governor-General at a time when we faced the challenges of government in the administration of COVID, we saw the sad passing of Queen Elizabeth II and we saw the coronation of King Charles III. I also want to place on the record in this place my thanks to the staff at Government House who support the Governor-General of the day and particularly to the official secretary, Paul Singer, who has served the Governor-General so well. I want to thank all of those members of staff at Government House who enable so much of our democracy and our public administration to happen. I commend the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the bill be read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 13

National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 13 13:18 Mr 210911 Wannon TEHAN () (): The National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is the enabling legislation for certain health measures contained in the 2024-25 budget, including the $3 billion in measures relating to the new eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement. The eighth CPA has been agreed between the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. This followed intense pressure from the coalition at the end of last year on behalf of all Australians who rely on their local community pharmacist. The agreement was finally released in June 2024, following sustained pressure from the coalition after the government botched implementation of the 60-day dispensing policy. They were warned at the time by the coalition that they had botched it and had botched it immensely. There was, rightly, outrage amongst regional and rural pharmacists in particular, and the government wouldn't listen but, anyway, in the end, were forced to act. We understood that government's lack of consultation and rushed policymaking was placing Australia's healthcare access at risk. We understood that; the government didn't. Many community pharmacies are small businesses. Expecting small businesses to shoulder the costs of a government policy alone was completely unreasonable. Our role in pressuring the government was in direct response to the risks that this posed to our critical community pharmacy sector. We called on the government to get back to the table with the community pharmacy sector and negotiate an eighth CPA to resolve legitimate concerns on their approach to 60-day dispensing. Fighting alongside community pharmacies, the coalition supported the sector to negotiate this new agreement with the government. Through the advocacy of the coalition and community pharmacists across the country, we supported Australians having access to more affordable most medicines without risking their local pharmacy closing. In reaching the new agreement, the government have recognised their initial approach to 60-day dispensing would have caused damage to all Australians who rely on their local community pharmacist. The eighth CPA will commence on 1 July 2024 and will provide increased support for pharmacies, with a funding boost of $3 billion and a total $26.5 billion in funding over five years. In the 2024-25 budget, the government provided further details on the measures agreed to as part of this agreement, including a one-year freeze in indexation of the PBS general patient co-payment, a five-year freeze in indexation of PBS concessional and general patient reduced and concessional beneficiary patient co-payments, and a gradual phasing-out of the $1 discount that can be offered to patients in certain circumstances to further discount the cost of PBS medicines. The agreement also acknowledged the coalition's long-standing concerns for rural, regional and remote communities' access to primary care by providing additional funding for the regional pharmacy maintenance allowance. This additional support will hopefully mitigate our concerns for the viability of community pharmacies, particularly those in the bush. The Albanese Labor government's initial plans would have devastated regional communities. We know that, in some regional towns, the local pharmacist is the community's sole primary health care provider. The loss of those pharmacies would have been catastrophic. No-one disputes the benefit of cheaper and easier access to medicines, but the government's failure to consult community pharmacies before implementing their policy was clearly the wrong decision. The uncertainty created by the government last year did not need to happen. The recent round of Senate estimates has also left us questioning the impact of the cheaper medicines package that resulted from this new agreement. The department could not explain how the removal of a $1 discount along with the freezing of the current price of medicines will actually make medicines cheaper for those Australians who rely on them. However, the coalition will support this bill because of the result of our strong advocacy on behalf of the Australian community pharmacy sector, which provides critical primary care for our community. But we put it on the record that this has only resulted because the government botched the implementation of their 60-day policy and put Australians' access to primary care at risk. The coalition will always stand up for both cheaper medicines and a viable community pharmacy sector. The new agreement is a win for community pharmacies, but questions remain as to how much Australians will save in comparison to the taxpayer dollars spent on fixing the government's mistake. I thank all those community pharmacies across Australia for their advocacy on this bill and, in particular, their advocacy on behalf of making sure that pharmacies right across the country got a fair outcome from their negotiations with the government on the pharmacy agreement. In particular, I would like to thank the local pharmacies in my electorate of Wannon, because they joined in this campaign because they knew and understood how important it was. They knew and understood the importance of their role in the local community as a primary healthcare giver, and they wanted to make sure that they could continue to play that role. The impact of the government's botched approach was going to be devastating for them. We were going to see employees, sadly, having to leave local pharmacies, and there was a real concern that some local pharmacies would close. So I hope that the minister, through his ham-fisted approach, and the government have learned a lesson from their approach and in particular their failure to consult properly when it came to the cheaper medicines bill. We all want cheaper medicines delivered to the community. We don't want it done, though, at the expense of regional and rural communities—with pharmacies having to close, having to lay off staff, having to run a skeleton small business rather than providing much-needed services to the community. We obviously support this bill but, as I've said, we hope the government has learned a lesson about properly consulting and, in particular, properly consulting regional and rural pharmacies. 13:26 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Over the years I have found that when you want to know why something extraordinary has occurred, you should follow the money trail. Now, if the income of owner-operator pharmacists is going to be halved, who profits by that? Obviously, they're going to go broke. Who is going to take over the job of pharmacies? Well, obviously, Terry White and Chemist Warehouse, the big boys. So what you have done here is impose a Woolworths and Coles upon pharmacies. You took away statutory marketing for farmers. When we had some 286,000 farmers—when I say 'you', in this case I mean the National Party, which deregulated the farmers—we now have 82,000 farmers. Congratulations, Mr Country Party that-once-was, you betrayed every single principle you've ever believed in. That quote from Andrew Gee was a dead accurate assessment. Coming back to the pharmacies, in this case, you halved the income of owner-operator pharmacists. So they're going to go broke, and who is going to take their place? The big two. And your spokesman in the Senate was so incredibly stupid as to let the cat out of the bag. She said: 'Oh, we haven't had time to discuss it with the Pharmacy Guild, but we have discussed it with Chemist Warehouse.' I bet you did. I bet Chemist Warehouse discussed it with you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 Member for Kennedy. As you are, correctly, directing your comments through me as the chair, it sounds like you're insulting me directly at this point. Mr KATTER HX4 You're entirely right about my improper behaviour. I will address that issue as I continue my speech. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 Thank you. Mr KATTER HX4 As an intellectually aware and intelligent person I asked a pharmacist, 'What happens now?' He said: 'Well, my income has halved and I don't know whether I can survive. I suppose I will just have to sell out, and the only buyer out there will be Chemist Warehouse or Terry White. So that is what's going to happen.' Just when do you people stop? When does the parliament of Australia stop destroying the owner-operator class and start to deliver the country to the people who sell food in this country? Everything else is bought from overseas and now you're destroying the pharmacies? When do you stop? Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say, 'When do you stop?', I don't mean the ALP; I mean both sides of this parliament, and that's probably the reason why, when I came to this place, there was one person on the crossbench and now there's 17. You keep going and we'll be the majority—the crossbench. You keep going. Have a look at the figures in Queensland. If you want to know what they think of how you're governing Australia, have a look at the polling in Queensland; it's very depressing for us, because we were hoping to get the balance of power. You will be annihilated. If the Liberal Party was in there— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 On that note, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, he will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Kempsey District Hospital 15 13:30 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I rise today to acknowledge the power of community fundraising and to simultaneously express my disappointment in the lack of government follow-through. I'm specifically referring to the Kempsey District Hospital hydrotherapy pool. Back in 1986, 30 local businesses raised over $150,000—a lot of money back then—to build a pool within the hospital. Since its installation the pool has been used by thousands of Macleay Valley residents. Unfortunately it closed in March 2020 due to COVID, coupled with the need for some maintenance. For the past two years residents and patients have been calling for the hydrotherapy pool to be reopened. I've had meetings with local health district representatives to see what needs to be done to make this happen. I have continually been disappointed by the lack of departmental response. The patients that need the pool are now travelling over 50 kilometres to the nearest facility to receive treatment, and I've since been advised that participants on the NDIS are being forced to use their packages to the tune of hundreds of dollars a week—so, therefore, the taxpayer is now indirectly paying for a lesser service in the local district. The community have spoken. We need to listen. The LHD needs to listen, and it's time to get this thing reopened. National Rugby League: State of Origin 15 13:31 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Like all proud New South Welshmen and women, I'll be backing the New South Wales Blues when they run onto the MCG for the second game of the State of Origin series. But I'll be cheering just that extra bit louder for the five Penrith Panthers players chosen to represent New South Wales: Penrith captain Isaah Yeo; Brian To'o; Jarome Luai; Liam Martin; and, of course, our Clive Churchill Medal winning fullback, Dylan Edwards, making his much-anticipated State of Origin debut. Over the past three years the Panthers have been the pride of our community, with an unbelievable three premierships in a row. Later this week they'll hit a thousand days as reigning premiers. The excellence of our local club is evident in the selection of these five players to represent our state on one of rugby league's biggest stages. I'm sure New South Wales coach Michael Maguire has seen the rugby league magic taking place at the foot of the mountains, so it's no surprise he moved the Blues camp from the bottom of the mountains—the coast, in fact—up the mountains to Leura, to the fantastic Fairmont Resort. I know I'm not alone in hoping that the peaceful environment, the fresh mountain air and the great hospitality they've experienced will give New South Wales the winning edge in that game. Go, the Blues! Alexandra Bay State School 16 13:33 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Alexandra Bay State School, in the Daintree Rainforest, near Cow Bay. It is a very small school and one which I visited previously. During my previous attendance it became very apparent to me that the kids were complete Lego fanatics. As the House should know, this region and this community has experienced some horrendous weather recently with Cyclone Jasper and the prolonged wet season. I thought it would be a good idea to bring a little bit of Lego cheer to the kids at Alexandra Bay State School. Between myself and the local Jabalbina Aboriginal Corporation we pooled together $700 for new Lego for the school. I also encouraged Channel Nine's Lego Masters program to get involved by contributing some set pieces and a special message from Brickman himself. Brickman challenged the kids to build their school out of Lego in under two hours. It was a fantastic morning and warmly received by the kids, staff, parents and all who had been through such a rough period. I thank all those that made it possible: principal Gavin Irvine; teacher Nicola Cox; Jabalbina CEO Joshua Paterson; Channel Nine, and Lego Masters producer Adrian Swift; and Ryan 'Brickman' McNaught himself. In closing, a message for Brickman himself: I understand the kids are well progressed in their 'build the school' challenge and are looking forward to your comprehensive assessment. It'll be on its way shortly, and we look forward to you making your own assessment. Carr, Mr Raymond 16 13:34 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt In the early hours of this morning an Australian hero, Raymond Carr, from the Narre Warren CFA, passed away. I last saw Ray two weeks ago when I visited him with my staff at the Casey Hospital. Ray dedicated his life to protecting and serving the community he was a part of and that he loved so dearly. He spent countless hours and sleepless nights to ensure that the rest of us in the community could sleep with peace of mind. Ray spent 38 years of his life in the CFA, holding many positions—including firefighter, captain, lieutenant, deputy group officer and PAD operator. Over his many years he served in three brigades: Hampton Park Fire Brigade, Berwick Fire Brigade and Narre Warren Fire Brigade. Ray has responded to many of the major fires in Victoria over the last 38 years, including the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 and the Black Summer bushfires in 2021. Ray will live on in all of our hearts and in our thoughts. He will be sorely missed. Vale, Raymond Carr. Mackellar Electorate: Domestic and Family Violence 16 13:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar The northern beaches of Sydney have a network of incredible services that support women who are homeless, or fleeing or recovering from domestic violence: the Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, Women and Children First, the Women's Resilience Centre, Zonta International and LocalKind Northern Beaches are just a few of the not-for-profit organisations in this amazing network. These services only exist because of their tireless community fundraising efforts. For example, the Women's Resilience Centre, which provides invaluable services for women recovering from domestic violence, gets only two per cent of its funding from government sources. Due to the lack of government funding, large amounts of time and effort must be devoted to fundraising, rather than to caring for families in crisis. Devastatingly, however, these services must turn away scores of women each week due to the severe lack of emergency accommodation in our region. That is why it is so deeply frustrating that Women and Children First, who have council approved plans to expand their emergency accommodation to triple the number of women and children it can support, has recently been knocked back for both federal and state funding. After seven months of waiting for a response, its application for federal funding under the Safe Places emergency accommodation fund has just been rejected. The $100 million available under this fund sounds impressive, but it's spread over five years. It is just a drop in the ocean of what is needed. World Ocean Day 16 13:37 Dr REID 300126 Robertson On World Ocean Day, 8 June, I met with the organisers of Plastic Free Avoca Beach and members of the community in Avoca and the surrounding areas to help remove pollution from the foreshore and beach at Avoca. This event was one of thousands of clean-ups that occurred across Australia and worldwide to recognise World Ocean Day. World Ocean Day is coordinated and promoted internationally by the Ocean Project and is officially recognised by the United Nations. It is held annually on 8 June and unites the world to protect and restore our blue planet. Our event was able to collect an outstanding 11.5 kilos of rubbish from the foreshore and the beach. This included two kilograms of recyclable bottles and cans. Plastic Free Avoca Beach does amazing work in raising awareness of pollution in our environment and facilitating community clean-up events. I very much appreciated the opportunity to be part of its recent clean-up on World Ocean Day. As a community, we need to ensure we do the right thing by disposing of our rubbish responsibly, and I look forward to working with the community and with Plastic Free Avoca Beach to reduce pollution—and also to reduce the number of cigarette butts in our environment. These are the most littered items in New South Wales, with an estimated 1.3 billion butts in New South Wales every year. Thank you Avoca Beach Plastic Free for everything that you do. Energy 17 13:39 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan The LNP are peddling a fantasy with their nuclear plan—a fantasy that, somehow, the most expensive form of power generation can bring down energy bills. That's how desperate they are to undermine cheap, clean renewables. Meanwhile, Labor loves that this debate is dominating the headlines because it conveniently distracts from their continuing approval of new coal and gas projects during a climate crisis. Both major parties are committed to their donors in the fossil fuel industry, donors who continue to export billions of dollars worth of coal and gas rake in massive profits, which they also export, while paying next to no tax into the Australian economy. At the end of the day, it's everyday Australians who suffer. They suffer higher power bills as the cheapest form of power—that's wind and solar, even accounting for the costs of transmission—are delayed for more expensive gas which is vulnerable to global price shocks. They suffer from price-gouging private energy companies exploiting those global price shocks. And, ultimately, they suffer from the effects of climate change made worse by the major parties united commitment to fossil fuels—heat waves that will kill thousands in our cities, more climate disasters that result in price shocks on essentials, higher insurance premiums and, yes, higher power bills too. Wine Industry 17 13:40 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, the bottle has now been uncorked for growth in our wine regions. Earlier this year, import duties placed on Australian wine into China were lifted. After more than three years of facing tariffs of around 220 per cent, it has certainly been a long time between drinks. In the first month of the tariffs being lifted, South Australian winemakers exported almost $80 million worth of wine into China. At the same time, our government is helping to unlock the door to other markets, such as Thailand, one of the fastest-growing markets for wine in the world. The uplifting effect of this change is already being felt across the country, and particularly within my home state of South Australia, including my electorate of Spence. Spence is home to Esilio Wines in Uleybury, which I recently visited alongside the Minister for Trade and Tourism. Esilio are one of the many winemakers that have had a literal world of potential opened up for them by our government. Esilio's owner, Harry Mantzarapis, said himself that our government's support of this vital sector is boosting our economy's morale and confidence. This is indeed a huge win for winemakers, the viticulture industry and those who work closely with it. It's a home truth that is widely recognised across the sector, and that's certainly something to toast. Braddon Electorate: Devonport 17 13:42 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Last week, Devonport was awarded Tasmania's Top Tourism Award Town for 2024. This award celebrates the best of the best of any Tasmanian world-class visitor experience. Home of the Spirit of Tasmania, Devonport is the gateway to our magnificent region and all that is to offer. But Devonport is a destination in itself. It's a city worth investing in, and that's exactly what the former government recognised—and we did it well. From our $10 million investment in the waterfront precinct, to investments in our tourism icons such as the Don River Railway, the Bass Strait Maritime Centre, the Julie Burgess, Home Hill, the Paranaple centre and many more. We invested in tree-planting, beautification projects in nature parks, walking trails and the protection of the swift parrot. We invested in upgrading local roads and safety programs, and the spectacular sound and light show which is about to be launched. We invested in more than 77 individual projects in Devonport alone. That investment is now drying up because the Albanese government has not shared our passion for our region. I look forward to the next election and the return of the Liberal-National coalition and reinstating the passion to make our regions the best that they can be. Taxation 17 13:43 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Next week, 1 July 2024, is an important day for all Australians. It's the day that all taxpayers in Australia get a tax cut and it's also the day the minimum wage increases. Firstly, the tax cuts. The importance and significance of these tax cuts can't be overstated. These tax cuts will benefit every working Australian. In Werriwa, those on $65,000 will get a $1,304 tax cut, while those on $83,000 will get $1,754. This is real money in the wallets of working Australians, and it will make a difference at the supermarket checkout as Australians meet cost-of-living challenges. Secondly, 1 July is also the day that the minimum wage rises by 3.75 per cent. This increase will benefit approximately 2.6 million workers and will result in an increase of around $33 a week. This increase will be especially welcomed by those who have part-time or casual work. Let 1 July be recorded as a red-letter day, a day when all Australians benefit from this government's fairer tax plan and when those who are the lowest paid get the boost to their wallets that they deserve. McCrindle, Mr Hugh Calmar McColl, OAM, Meguyer, Mr Roy Barry 18 13:44 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The electorate of Lyne has sadly lost and farewelled two incredible men: 95-year-old Hugh McCrindle and 90-year-old Roy Meguyer. I'd like to pay tribute to both of them. Hugh McCrindle OAM was born in Sydney in 1928, and he made the move to Taree with his wife, May, in 1966. Hugh worked during that time as the general manager of the 2RE Radio station. In 1968, he joined the Taree North Rotary Club and marked the beginning of a long contribution to the community outside of broadcasting. He was twice awarded Rotary's highest honour, the Paul Harris Fellows medal, and was eventually made an honorary member. Hugh was a long supporter of local community organisations, and many in the Manning will remember him. I extend my sincere sympathy to Hugh's family. I'd also like to acknowledge the life of Roy Meguyer, who was born on the Isle of Wight in 1934 before migrating to Australia in 1951. Shortly after, Roy was called up for national service, and thereafter he served in the Citizen Military Forces. In the late 1990s, Roy and Eileen settled in Old Bar, and it was here that Roy became involved in the Old Bar Beach RSL Club. Roy was a stalwart of the RSL and the Old Bar community, and I offer my heartfelt sympathies to Roy's family and his wife, Eileen. Thank you, Roy, for a life well lived. Antisemitism 18 13:46 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Last week, six masked people smashed up by St Kilda office. They shattered windows, lit two fires out the front of my office and led to the evacuation of the residential buildings above, including of a small family with a baby, who had to be evacuated at 3.30 in the morning. The fires destroyed communication lines, and the businesses on Barkly Street had no Wi-Fi to take orders last week. For the Jewish community, images of my office with horns were reminiscent of some of the worst of our collective memory. In Macnamara, residents and small businesses were left distressed and my staff rattled. For them, it was a dangerous escalation on our place of work. They've been receiving threats on the phone for the past nine months. My staff are kind, hardworking and smart people, and their job is to help the people of Macnamara, which we all love. I'm here to say today that this is enough. It has to stop. Innocent people could have been seriously hurt. The Australia I know and love is one where everyone is free to be who they are, love who they love and practise their culture and faith with dignity. The Australia I know and love is where we can have hard and difficult conversations while maintaining respect for one another. We must resist talking about issues in absolutes. We can disagree and we can debate. But pain and suffering isn't a competition, and we can't forget how to show empathy, compassion and respect to our fellow Australians. So my plea to everyone in this place is to think about the role we must play as leaders, and we must continue to treat each other with respect and to respect the views of others in this place. Local Government Week 18 13:48 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Next week is National Local Government Week, and I look forward to welcoming a delegation from the City of Joondalup to Canberra as they advocate for federal funding contributions towards priority local projects. A series of meetings have been organised with relevant ministers to discuss the need to secure federal support towards priority projects, such as upgrading the roads to facilitate the development of Joondalup City North, establish the Joondalup innovation precinct, redevelop the clubrooms at Heathridge Park and progress the Joondalup performing arts cultural convention and exhibition centre. These are all essential projects to enable the growth of our regional city. In February, the Prime Minister declared that Moore is now a key seat following the change in political dynamics. Moore now matters even more. Accordingly, in conjunction with the City of Joondalup, I extended an invitation to the Albanese government ministers with relevant portfolio responsibilities for infrastructure, industry and science, sport and the arts to visit my electorate of Moore to view these key projects firsthand, to engage with the local community at events and to enter into further detailed discussions on funding submissions of the City of Joondalup. Ministers will be assured of a warm, welcome reception as we meet the strong merit based case for federal supports on behalf of the Moore community. Taxation, Wages 19 13:49 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Six, 82,000 and 1,800. What do these numbers have in common? In six sleeps, some 82,000 taxpayers in Bean will receive an average tax cut of $1,800. On 1 July, every Australian will receive a tax cut under this government. No matter who you are, this Albanese Labor government will make sure you pay less tax. We understand that family budgets are under pressure right now, and taking that pressure off family budgets is our No. 1 priority. This is not the only change that will come into effect. On 1 July, some 2.6 million workers on the modern award minimum wage will see their pay increase by 3.75 per cent. With the Fair Work Commission decision, real wages for low-paid workers don't go backwards. National minimum wage earners in Australia will now be paid $24.10 per hour, which is an extra $33.10 per week and an additional $1,721 per year. After a decade of deliberate wage stagnation and suppression under the coalition, under Labor, real wages are growing again. Under this Albanese Labor government, more Australians are working, more Australians are earning more and more Australians will keep more of what they earn. Armitage, Mr Clive Antony 19 13:51 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Clive Armitage was a true gentleman, a great man and a good friend. Toowoomba came together to mourn his passing last week and to wrap the city's love around his wife, Conchita, their children, Heidi and Howard, and their families. Clive came to Australia in 1965 as a Ten Pound Pom, and, boy, did we get our money's worth. Together with Conchita he became one of the city's largest employers and one of our most prominent philanthropists. Through his work with Rotary, with the Order of Saint John or directly, he supported so many people in our city. He supported big things, like the Queensland Museum Cobb+Co, the Queensland Ballet and, of course, The Empire Theatre, where his legacy is now forever celebrated at the Armitage Centre. He supported little things. Howard recalled a time when Clive bought a new pram for a new mother whose story of hardship he'd read in the Chronicle. He was a giver, and he blessed our city with his generosity. His outstanding efforts in business and philanthropy are well known, but his impact on politics both locally and nationally was also immense. He brought the same conviction, dignity, decency and energy to political debate that won him acclaim elsewhere. He could hold his own with anyone from Jeff Kennett to Tony Abbott and the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton. He was a national mentor—the sort of guy who, when he put his hand on your shoulder, made you feel 10 feet tall, whether you were flipping burgers in one of his McDonald's stores or speaking here in parliament. He taught us that with kindness, courage and conviction anything can be achieved. It's those three values that I would like him to be remembered by. May he rest in peace. Nuclear Energy 19 13:52 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong It's been six days since the Liberals launched their nuclear crusade. I want to let Bennelong know three reasons why I oppose nuclear power—no memes, just facts. Firstly, we do not have another 15 to 20 years to give coal-fired power free reign in our electricity grid. The Liberals' nuclear plans will give coal-fired power a new lease on life, and that would be catastrophic for our efforts to combat climate change. Secondly, nuclear will essentially halt our transition to renewable energy. Nuclear power cannot be switched off, and, as we continue to install more solar panels on homes, the addition of nuclear power would literally blow up the grid. I'll spell it out for them: more nuclear equals fewer renewables, and fewer renewables is bad for our economy and our environment. Lastly, it's the cost. I'll take a stab in the dark here, but I think the good people of Bennelong trust the CSIRO over any politician any day of the week. The CSIRO has consistently found that the most expensive form of new energy is nuclear and that the cheapest is renewables. Ninety per cent of coal is due to exit our system by 2035. Labor is replacing that coal with renewables to get to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, with the remainder of our grid to be firmed by gas. This is a good plan and a plan that is working. My message to Bennelong is that their MP will fight against this ridiculous plan every day of the week. Canning Electorate: Peel Health Campus 19 13:54 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I've risen 11 times in this place to urge Labor to fix my local hospital, the Peel Health Campus. That's how serious this matter is to people in my region. It's a matter of life and death. But how seriously does Labor take it? How many times have the Prime Minister or health minister spoken about this hospital? Zero—that's how many times. That's how much those opposite care about the people of Mandurah, Dawesville, Pinjarra and the wider Peel region. There are three state Labor MPs representing the people in the hospital's catchment area. Mandurah MP David Templeman is a cabinet minister, but he can't tie his own shoelaces. Dawesville MP Lisa Munday argues that hospital ramping doesn't really exist. Tell that to the patients who have waited thousands of hours for a hospital bed. And I don't think Murray-Wellington MP Robyn Clarke has ever made health a priority. But there is good news: Help is on the way. The next state election is on 8 March 2025, just over the horizon. In Dawesville, Owen Mulder is standing for the Liberals. In Murray-Wellington, local shire president David Bolt has put up his hand to run for the party. Both are good local candidates who will fight for a better hospital. These hardworking locals are fighting for their communities. They will fight for a better health system and they'll do everything they can to make sure they win government and remove this hapless Cook government in Western Australia. Taxation 20 13:55 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In less than a week, it will be 1 July—a big day for all Australian women, particularly those who are working. That's because, on this side of the House, the Labor government has restored fairness to our tax system by ensuring that all workers will get a tax cut, including all 6.5 million women who are paying taxes. They will receive a tax cut. In fact, 90 per cent of these women will receive a bigger tax cut than those opposite promised. Under their plan, some women would not have gotten a tax cut at all. That is because, on this side of the House, we are committed to making sure that Australian women will earn more and keep more of what they earn. Something else that will happen on 1 July is that the minimum wage will increase by 3.75 per cent. Of Australian workers who rely upon the minimum wage, 56.7 per cent are women. They are our cleaners, our retail workers, our ECEC educators, our dental nurses and our pharmacy assistants, just to name a few. They are going to get not only a tax cut that those opposite would have denied them but also a pay increase. That is because this government is committed to making sure that Australian women will earn more and keep more of what they earn. Albanese Government 20 13:57 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Now is the time when we need really strong leadership in our country, and, unfortunately, leadership has been lacking from this government on a number of very serious issues. The first one is antisemitism in this country. In the history of our nation, we haven't seen a rise in antisemitism like we've seen under the watch of this government. We have students who feel scared to go to school, we have students who feel scared to be at university and we have Jewish people who are scared to be at their synagogues. This government and the leadership of this government needs to do much more on that issue. With China, we've seen issues. We've seen the chaffing incident, which involved our aircraft. We saw the HMAS Toowoomba with the sonar incident. We've seen an incident with a journalist last week in this building. Again, these hard discussions have to happen from leader to leader. This can't happen from navy official to navy official. This can't happen in the discussion with the press after the event has happened. Much more needs to happen from the leadership of this government on that as well. The last one is the nuclear debate that we've seen this week. What is the leadership of this government saying when they put out photos of three-eyed fish? What are they saying to our submariners who work with nuclear? What are they saying to the people who live near Lucas Heights? (Time expired) Liberal Party of Australia 20 13:58 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I'd like the House to take a moment to mark the death of the shadow Treasurer's economic policy principles. Many in this House will fondly remember the back-to-basics economic principles so lovingly nurtured by the shadow Treasurer, including his two favourite principles: smaller government and project commerciality. It is with great sadness that I report that, on Wednesday last week, at the tender age of just two years and one month, both of the shadow Treasurer's principles were brutally killed by the Leader of the Opposition. The cause of death? Being thrown under a bus! Autopsy results have shown that the small-government agenda was crushed under the weight of a $600 billion, taxpayer funded nuclear program. Forensic evidence of the crime scene shows that the second principle of commerciality was starved through the cruel neglect of private sector investors who just weren't interested. Mr Taylor 231027 You used to be in favour of nuclear! What happened? Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHARLTON I8M Members opposite are interjecting. But you're not angry at me; you're angry at him. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Dr CHARLTON I8M He's the one who just shredded your economic conservative credentials. Friends, our thoughts— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. Dr CHARLTON I8M are with the Shadow Treasurer. After being mugged by the economic policies of his leader, it's not so much back to basics for Angus as it is back to the drawing board. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Charlton is reminded to refer to members by their correct title. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Morcombe, Mr Bruce OAM, Morcombe, Mrs Denise OAM 21 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the Speaker's Gallery today are Mrs Denise Morcombe OAM and Mr Bruce Morcombe OAM, founders of the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, which is recognising 20 years of work across Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you and your guests. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I want to rise to acknowledge Denise and Bruce Morcombe, who honour us with their presence in the parliament today. I had the privilege of meeting with them in my office earlier this morning. In 2003 Denise and Bruce lived every parent's very worst nightmare, when their beloved son Daniel was taken from them just before his 14th birthday. Bruce and Denise suffered a terrible loss and endured what must have felt like an endless wait for answers and for a measure of justice. Yet they channelled that unimaginable grief and sadness into something quite extraordinary, the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, an organisation dedicated to keeping children safe both in the physical environment and online. Today we had the opportunity, tragically, to talk about the shift that's occurred in risk. When most of us in this chamber were younger, there wasn't the threat of online danger, of grooming or of the sorts of attacks and vulnerability that young people have today. The role that these two great citizens of Queensland have played in raising awareness is, I think, quite inspirational. Through nearly 20 years of Days for Daniel, Dances for Daniel, and a host of other initiatives, the foundation has raised funds and awareness to support the work they do across Australia, giving presentations on child safety to schools and community groups and helping parents have those all-important conversations with their children about the risks that are out there. I think the figure they were aiming for was 8,000 schools to be engaged with, which is amazing. As every parent knows, this is a challenge that is constantly evolving—and I know you've been involved with the organisation yourself, Mr Speaker—especially with technology and social media moving so fast and extending seemingly into every corner of our lives. All of us are grappling with what we can do as parents and as lawmakers, and I know I speak for the whole parliament when I say that we are grateful that Denise and Bruce are providing their expertise and perspective to the National Strategy Advisory Group of the National Office for Child Safety. The National Office for Child Safety was established by the Turnbull government, acting on the recommendation of the Gillard government's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The office leads the implementation of the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. This is and always will be an area that commands the support of every member of this chamber. That's why, at our meeting today, we discussed your request for funding for the Day for Daniel, Australia's biggest child safety lesson, and a legacy educational piece for the 20th year as well. I can inform Denise and Bruce that this afternoon I will take a proposal for a one-off $2 million payment to the foundation to our budget process. I've discussed this with the Leader of the Opposition, and I thank him as well for reaching across the aisle. We've had a couple of constructive discussions prior to question time today. This is not a partisan issue; this is an issue in which we all join together in this chamber. I hope that this relatively small amount of funding, though, will enable you to really get on your feet and to achieve what you want to—particularly with the 20th anniversary, which is something that I think is deserving of this parliament's support. The government is grateful for the backing that the Daniel Morcombe Foundation has given to the current 'One Talk at a Time' campaign, which is aimed at preventing child sexual abuse. Bruce and Denise, you have shown a courage and resilience that lifts us all up. Your foundation inspires, it educates and it helps make Australia a better and a safer place. Above all, your work represents a lasting expression of profound love for your son. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for what you do. 14:06 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the Prime Minister for his fine words and, on behalf of the coalition, I associate ourselves with those words and the sentiment. I extend a very warm welcome to Bruce and Denise Morcombe today, and to other members of the Morcombe Foundation, and thank them for their tireless work over the last 20 years. We can think of any parent's worst nightmare, as the Prime Minister rightly points out; the scenario was that Daniel went to purchase Christmas presents and it was eight years before they found out what had taken place. I spoke to Bruce and Denise yesterday about the angst that families feel in relation to a missing loved one. It's not just the horrible, egregious and shocking circumstances to understand what your own child may have gone through in that point of contact with some predator but it's the uncertainty of knowing where your son or daughter might be for all those years. With their tireless efforts and their media advocacy—the way in which they engaged the hearts and minds of not just Queenslanders but every Australian—as Daniel was searched for, and the way in which the Sunshine Coast community in particular really came behind a local family, everybody could feel, every parent could feel, the anguish they were going through. From the way that they have dedicated themselves since then—going to schools, doing online talks, engaging with other NGOs—there are countless lives of young Australian children that they've saved. And that's something that we should acknowledge today. The true extent of their work, the true reach of their message, is the way in which they've changed lives which otherwise would have been changed irrevocably—that's something that we should celebrate today as well. We should remember always that child safety is the first charge of all of us in this place. The work that the Morcombe Foundation does in a changing environment, as the Prime Minister pointed out before—the threats that are online, the predation that takes place, the grooming, the exchange of details, the innocent conversations, the messages that are swapped, the images that are shared—are all part of the conversation that the Morcombe Foundation is having in language that children can understand and relate to. The Morcombes now, wherever they go around Australia, are recognised identities. People stop them and talk to them, and so the continuing anguish, in that sense, that they feel but which they guard the community from, is something we all acknowledge today. But in their son's honour, they have not taken any time for rest. When you speak to them, it's quite astounding how they go from school to school and tell the story over and over and over again, and they do it because they honour the legacy of their son. And so, too, do their other two boys. I want to say thank you very much to you, Mr Speaker, for hosting an afternoon tea in their honour this afternoon, and I thank all of those who provide significant financial support at the dances, at the fundraising events and the philanthropic giving otherwise. I want to thank the Prime Minister for the discussions we've had about the funding he's announced today. Of course, the coalition matches that commitment, and we do so with a great deal of pride and honour. We pay respect to two wonderful Australians, to their family and to their supporters who are here today. 14:10 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher December 7, 2003, was a day I remember. I was working in the front yard in my house in Palmwoods when I heard the message come across the radio that a young boy had been taken from Palmwoods, from a bus stop. The entire community was in a sense of grief that day. I don't think I'll ever forget that. My eldest daughter used to go to school with Daniel. The sense of grief from the Sunshine Coast community was palpable, for years and years, whilst Daniel remained missing. I think Australians will never forget the grief and pain that you must have been going through, Denise and Bruce. But you turned that grief into good. Whilst I think most families, most parents, would be inconsolable in their grief—I think most human beings would go into their shells—you two didn't. You used that as an opportunity to go out and spread the message of the risks that children face. I think each and every single one of us in this chamber—and every parent around this country—would look, in some degree of awe, at what you did. I know the work that you do is saving children's lives. On behalf of my colleagues here, I want to thank you both so much for the work that you do. And I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for coming together and agreeing to fund you, moving forward. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Renewable Energy 22 14:12 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has quoted AEMO to say its renewables-only energy policy would cost $121 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, according to AEMO, this value does not include a single cent of the cost for any projects that are commissioned, committed or anticipated, including Snowy Hydro 2.0, the Central-West Orana Transmission Link, or the CopperString transmission project? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to ask the member for Fairfax to state that question again because the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was constantly interjecting. The question is not directed to him. I want to hear from the member for Fairfax. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 My question goes to the Prime Minister. The government has quoted AEMO to say its renewables-only energy policy would cost $121 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, according to AEMO, this value does not include a single cent of the cost for any projects that are commissioned, committed or anticipated, including Snowy Hydro 2.0, the Central-West Orana Transmission Link or the CopperString transmission project? 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler AEMO produces an Integrated System Plan, and they produce it every year. Indeed, here it is! See this? This is called 'detail'. On this side of the page there are graphs, there's detail, there are costs, and on that side, there's yours. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will not use props! Mr ALBANESE R36 On one side is us and on the other side is yours. On one side of all of ours— An opposition member interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 Well, the first thing we did was to read it in the lead-up to the election campaign—when we said that the basis to our plan was the Integrated System Plan. And what's extraordinary is that the entire time they were in office they ignored the Integrated System Plan that was brought down by the Australian Energy Market Operator. They had 22 different policies and didn't land a single one—a single one. Nothing. What we have done is move forward in a practical way. Mr ALBANESE R36 The shadow minister just used that, the member for Deakin. I'd concentrate on doorknocking if I were you, mate. Mr ALBANESE R36 Not because it would help you, by the way! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Here's the plan. What you have is this: a blank page—no costings, and you can't say how many gigawatts, you can't say how many reactors will be there and you can't say what you'll do with the six of the seven owners of the land who've said no to it. At least people like the member for Wannon have been smart enough to say, 'I don't want it anywhere near me.' The SPEAKER 53517 Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Order, members on my left. We're going to have the House come to order so I can hear from the member for Dunkley. Energy 23 14:16 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping families and business with the cost of energy bills, and what policies has the government rejected and why? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin is now warned. Do not interject before a minister speaks. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has the call. 14:16 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for her question and her contribution in this House since her recent arrival. In six days time, energy bill relief flows to the Australian people because of the Albanese government. In six days time, every single Australian with an energy bill will get relief from this government, following the relief in last year's budget. And, of course, what's also happening is that wholesale energy prices, which were $375 a megawatt hour when we came to office, were $76 a megawatt hour in the first quarter of this year. That's less—$76 a megawatt hour is less than the $375 that the previous government presided over. That's because renewable energy is up 25 per cent since we came to office and because this government put caps on the price of coal and gas. The honourable member also asked me what policies we have rejected. We rejected the thought bubble which says that you could introduce the most expensive form of energy known anywhere in the world to Australia and it would somehow, magically, see bills go down. We're not the only people who have rejected it. We saw Rod Sims, the former chair of the ACCC, say yesterday that it would increase energy prices by more than $200 a year. We've seen Dylan McConnell say that it will increase prices by $400 to $500 a year. We've seen Roger Dargaville said it'll increase prices by up to $1,000 a year. Whichever one of those it is, it's more than Australians are paying today. Whoever's right, it's more than Australians are paying today. It gets worse, because what we know from the opposition's thought bubble is—a few things. We don't know the costs and we don't know the modelling, but we know a few things. We know that this once great party of free enterprise has said they're going to run it all. They're going to own all of them. They're going to run it all. The shadow Treasurer a couple of weeks ago said he's against subsidies; it's all got to stand up for itself. And then the Leader of the Opposition says, 'We're going to own it all.' The shadow Treasurer cleared it up and said, 'Don't worry; it's off budget.' That means they've got to make money on it. So they're going to spend hundreds of billions and then they're going to make money on it, which means they're going to charge more. Now, the shadow Treasurer has said that off-budget funds are risky, they increase taxes, they increase inflation and they're bad for the economy, and he calls them 'sneaky'. He's going to repeal $10 billion in off budget for housing. They're opposed to $20 billion in off budget for transmission. But they're fine with $600 million off budget for nuclear energy; that's just fine. Apparently that's not going to increase taxes, that's not going to increase interest rates and that's not risky for Australians. This half-baked yellow-cake idea of the opposition's falls apart every time it gets exposed to any scrutiny at all. It's just underlines the fact that this Leader of the Opposition is a huge risk to Australia's economic future. (Time expired) Energy 24 14:19 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Prime Minister. The government has quoted AEMO to say its renewables-only energy policy would cost $121 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm that according to AEMO this value does not include a single cent of the cost for the required upgrades to Australia's distribution network? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Before I call the minister, I'd like to hear from the member for Wentworth, who has risen on her feet. She will be heard in silence as well. Ms Spender 286042 Speaker, I'm seeking direction from the chair regarding standing order 100(d)(i). The standing order states that questions must not contain statements of facts unless they can be authenticated. I note that the shadow minister has asked for clarification about the renewables-only plan of the government, and I'd like to understand if that is indeed a renewables-only plan of the government. The SPEAKER 53517 The difficulty the chair has is that I cannot be responsible for every single statement that is made in the House. I can give the member the benefit of the doubt and would hope that no member would ever mislead the House—and I know the member for Fairfax would definitely be in that category—so it's difficult for the chair to make a ruling. The precedent has been for a very long period of time that the question asked by the member be in line with Practice. But I'll hear from the Leader of the House on the point of order. Mr Burke DYW Just on this standing order, Mr Speaker, there have been occasions where members have been asked to authenticate with evidence. Whether that's something that's appropriate for this question or not, I'm just saying there is some precedent for that being sought. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition and then return to the member for Wentworth. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On the point of order that was just raised by the Leader of the House, there's no reference to precedent whatsoever. There's some vague recollection of something that might have happened just around the time of Federation, but no detail, no page of Practice—nothing at all. So I wouldn't take that red herring, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the wheels are falling off this government— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The House is going to come to order so we can deal with this issue so question time may continue. On the same point of order, the member for Warringah. Ms 175696 In furtherance to the member for Wentworth's seeking a clarification from the Speaker, the standing orders are very clear that, in relation to those statements of facts—'unless they can be authenticated'. Since this statement of a renewables-only plan has been repeated on a number of occasions, surely now it is not difficult for the shadow minister to provide the authentication of that statement. The SPEAKER 53517 Look— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. I can appreciate, on the— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right. No. Anyone is entitled to rise on this point of order, and so is the deputy leader. Ms Ley 00AMN On the point of order, Mr Speaker, the statement made was a fact. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Members on my right, I want to deal with this matter quickly so we can move on. This is dealing with members' question time, and there are members who I know wish to ask questions. Perhaps on a final point of order, the member for Wentworth. Ms Spender 286042 I note that the opposition's budget reply speech—I read the opposition's budget reply speech—used the term 'renewables only' on the website of the Leader of the Opposition but in quotation marks. So I am seeking clarification: is this a statement of fact in relation to 'renewables only' or is it not—because there are concerningly different interpretations in relation to that? The SPEAKER 53517 We're going to deal with this matter so we can move on with question time. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right! I appreciate the concern by members of the crossbench raising this matter. It would be untenable for the Speaker to simply start deciding, or ruling in or out, what I believe is a statement of fact. I have to rely on the authenticity of all members, including members of the crossbench, with their questions—to understand the position that I'm in, to enable question time to operate effectively. We're going to move on. I appreciate the member's statement, but we're going to move on. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has the call. 14:25 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon As I recall the question, it was about whether the cost in the $121 billion includes distribution. That was the question asked by the member for Fairfax. That was a very interesting question, because I have heard the Leader of the Opposition confuse 'transmission' and 'distribution' in the past. I thought: 'Oh, well, he's the leader; he's got to be across a lot of portfolios. He doesn't have to be across the detail.' We've just learned he's been ill advised by his shadow minister, because transmission is about the big interconnectors—the big interstate connections. Distribution is about poles and wires and telegraph poles in suburbs! Regardless of how the energy is generated, you still need telegraph poles and you still need wires in the street—unless this is a secret part of the plan we haven't been told about yet: if it's nuclear, you don't need telegraph poles. That's what the member for Fairfax is putting now! Apparently, they're not going to need to invest at all in poles and wires in the streets. We're not going to need any new telegraph poles in new suburbs, because it all comes from nuclear, all of a sudden. They don't need any in France, apparently. In France there are no telegraph poles! This is news! Good news! This is the new golden age, where we don't need any telegraph poles and we don't need any wires. The former member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, once said he was going to put them all underground in his electorate, but this is going one better: we don't need them at all! Now— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There's far too much noise on my left. I want to hear from the member for Fairfax on his one point of order, and he may have the call—and before the member makes his statement, he needs to be very clear, not adding additional statements in. He has the lead in the MPI today, so I want to be very clear that he is going to be strict with his point of order. We've had enough interruptions so far; we're going to deal with this in a respectful way. The member for Fairfax has the call. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is on relevance. The question went to whether or not the AEMO quoted figure of $121 billion included so much as one single cent of the cost for the required upgrades to Australia's— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will resume his seat; he has raised his point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. To assist the House, I'm going to ask the minister to return to the question, because I could not hear what he was saying. Mr BOWEN DZS The member for Fairfax underlines his misunderstanding that any investment in distribution is required whether the power comes from renewables, or coal, or gas or nuclear. It's the same; it's the same regardless of where the generation comes from. You still need telegraph poles. You still need wires. And the other interesting thing is that the member for Fairfax is now approvingly quoting AEMO, who he and the Leader of the Opposition have been bagging for months for daring to point out that renewables, firmed renewables, are the cheapest form of energy. AEMO will be releasing an updated ISP tomorrow, and I look forward to member for Fairfax criticising AEMO when they make similar points tomorrow. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call— Mr Bowen DZS Ask another one, Peter! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is now warned! It's the same rules either side: no interruptions when I'm about to call a question, to show respect to the person asking the question. The member for Moreton has the call. Cost of Living 26 14:29 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government working to deliver cost-of-living relief to ease pressure on Australians? What hurdles have been overcome? 14:29 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It is a real honour to represent the southern suburbs of Brisbane with the member for Moreton. I appreciate his friendship, I appreciate his advice and I appreciate his question today. The member for Moreton understands that Monday is 1 July and that makes it a very important day, because after Monday, every Australian— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. No. There is too much noise. The member for Barker is now warned. We are 20 seconds in and all I am getting is a wall of noise on my left. That is going to stop. We are going to reset. The member for Moreton was heard in silence. The Treasurer will be given the same courtesy. The Treasurer has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The 1st of July is a very important day, because after Monday every taxpayer will get a tax cut, every household will get energy bill relief and millions of workers on awards will get a pay rise. We are delivering cheaper medicines and an extra two weeks of paid parental leave. So Monday is a very important day for parents and pensioners, for workers and families, for middle Australia, for teachers, for truckies and for nurses. Those opposite said they would roll back the tax cuts. They voted against energy bill relief last time. They said no to cheaper medicines. They presided over a decade of low wages growth. This side of the House is proud to be delivering better wages, bigger tax cuts, more energy bill relief, cheaper medicines and more help for parents. This is how we ensure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. This is how you deliver cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up prices with expensive nuclear reactors, which cost more, take longer, create new investor uncertainty and squander the economic opportunity that comes from cheaper and cleaner renewable energy. You don't deliver cost-of-living relief by pretending, as the Leader of the Opposition does, that there will be lower power prices in the 2020s if you build reactors in the late 2030s. We know that people are under the pump right now. We will see that in the inflation numbers that we get tomorrow. Those numbers will show that inflation is much lower than at its peak and much lower than the 6.1 per cent that we inherited from the coalition. We also know that inflation doesn't always moderate in a straight line. The monthly numbers can be volatile. They don't compare the same things from one month to the next month. We know, from inflation which peaked earlier and higher in other countries, that it can zig and zag on the way down—and that last mile can be a bit harder. Our policies are reducing inflation and they are expected to reduce inflation further. That is why the most recent Treasury forecasts have us coming back to the inflation target band earlier than expected. That is because of our responsible economic management. It is because we are turning two big Liberal deficits into two substantial Labor surpluses. It is because of the way that we are rolling out cost-of-living relief—from this Monday, a tax cut for every taxpayer, energy bill relief for every household, a pay rise for people on awards, cheaper medicines and an extra two weeks of paid parental leave. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 27 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS University of Wollongong Vice-Chancellor Scholars, Dix, Professor Arnold 27 14:33 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that we have present in the gallery today a group of vice-chancellor scholars from the University of Wollongong as guests of the member for Cunningham. Also, I am advised that present in the gallery today, as a guest of the member for Gippsland, is Professor Dix, the President of the International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association. Members may recall that Professor Dix played a vital role in the successful mission of rescuing 41 miners who were trapped underground when a tunnel collapsed in November late last year. While Professor Dix is a world-class disaster expert, I assure members he is here in a social capacity today. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 27 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Assange, Mr Julian Paul 27 14:33 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it has been reported today that Julian Assange has left the United Kingdom and is now en route to a United States territory. There are reports that, after 14 years, his legal proceedings may soon be resolved. Prime Minister, is Julian Assange finally coming home? 14:34 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Kooyong for her question and for her ongoing interest in this issue. Members on this side of the House, some of the members on the opposite side of the House and the crossbenchers—including the member for Kooyong and the member for Clark in particular—have had a long-term association with this issue. The government is certainly aware that Australian citizen Mr Julian Assange has legal proceedings scheduled in the United States. While this is a welcome development, we recognise that these proceedings are crucial and delicate. Given these proceedings are ongoing, it isn't appropriate to provide further detailed comment. I will say, though, that the Australian government has continued to provide consular assistance to Mr Assange through the UK high commissioner, Stephen Smith, who travelled with Mr Assange when he left the United Kingdom, and US ambassador Kevin Rudd, who is also providing important assistance. I've been very clear, as the Labor leader in opposition but also as Prime Minister, that, regardless of the views people have about Mr Assange's activities, the case has dragged on for too long. There is nothing to be gained by his continued incarceration, and we want him brought home to Australia. We have engaged and advocated Australia's interests using all appropriate channels to support a positive outcome, and I have done that since very early on in my prime ministership. I will have more to say when these legal proceedings have concluded, which I hope will be very soon, and I will report, as appropriate, at that time. Medicare: Urgent Care Clinics 27 14:36 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the minister for health. How will the Albanese Labor government's Medicare urgent care clinics make it easier for Australians to see a doctor after decades of cuts and neglect? 14:36 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend the member for Newcastle for that question. She is part of the formidable Hunter Labor team along with the member for Shortland, the member for Hunter and the member for Paterson. I can tell you: they hunt as a pack, relentlessly arguing for better services, for more jobs and for targeted help with the cost of living in their amazing community, and they are terrific advocates for our broader plan for a stronger Medicare. They made the case for the reinstatement of funding to the outstanding after-hours GP services in that region, GP access—funding that was cut by the Liberals. I can say that, as a result of their advocacy, that service is now back up and running at full tilt. They're also fierce supporters of our broader Strengthening Medicare plan. More bulk-billing services is a critical issue in Newcastle, in the Hunter. More cheaper medicines is something they've argued for very strongly—and that network of urgent care clinics that the member for Newcastle referred to. The Cessnock urgent care clinic was one of the 58 clinics we opened as part of our election commitment last year, and the member for Hunter has told us that almost 7,000 members of his community have already been seen at that clinic—the majority of whom would otherwise have had to spend hours waiting at the emergency department at the Cessnock Hospital. Across the network of those 58 urgent care clinics, in less than 12 months 494,000 patients have already been seen—a third of them kids under the age of 15, a third of them on the weekend and every single one of them fully bulk-billed, seen free of charge. That is not just taking pressure off the local hospitals but delivering real help with the cost of living. But we know we can do more. That's why I was back in the region with the Hunter Labor team announcing a second urgent care clinic for the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie region—again, to take pressure off the wonderful John Hunter Hospital. It is part of 29 further additional urgent care clinics we announced as part of the budget last month. I also announced a second clinic in the Gold Coast, around Southport, to take pressure off the busiest emergency department in the nation, in that part of Australia. Last week I announced, with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, an urgent care clinic in the Fairfield region to take pressure off the very busy Fairfield Hospital—and there will be more announcements, I can guarantee you that. Our focus on making Medicare stronger and health care cheaper could not be more different from the focus of those opposite. It could not be more different from their record of making health care more expensive and that blatant disregard for the cost of health care that we again see running right through their plan to push up power prices through nuclear reactors. (Time expired) Nuclear Energy 28 14:39 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. President Biden has declared nuclear power America's biggest source of clean energy, and last week the US Congress overwhelmingly backed a bill to cut red tape and accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants across the country. Why is the Albanese government risking the lights going out in Australia instead of using nuclear energy, which is proven around the world to deliver cheaper, cleaner and more consistent energy? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right, I couldn't hear that question. The deputy leader will be given the courtesy of asking her question in silence. If I'm going to make decisions about the answers, I have to hear the question. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Prime Minister. President Biden has declared nuclear power America's biggest source of clean energy, and last week the US Congress overwhelmingly backed a bill to cut red tape and accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants across the country. Why is the Albanese government risking the lights going out in Australia instead of using nuclear, which is proven around the world to deliver cheaper, cleaner and more consistent energy? 14:41 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. She asked about international experience as if all nations are the same, but here in Australia we have different comparative advantages. That's why every single analysis has shown— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition! We've had the question; we're going to hear the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 that the cheapest form of new energy here in Australia is renewables. That's why, when it comes to nuclear, those opposite have had to go and say: 'Forget about our support for private enterprise; forget about our support for markets—we're going to have a command economy system. We're going to nationalise the energy system.' Why are they saying that? Because not a single bank, not a single financial institution, will finance a nuclear reactor in Australia. That's why the Leader of the Opposition himself said just last year that he didn't support large-scale nuclear reactors. He was opposed to them. That's what I assume they all said in the 22 different plans that they handed down when they were in government, without one of them being pro nuclear. Of course, it was the hero of those opposite, John Howard, who went out there and legislated for a nuclear reactor ban here in Australia— Mr Howarth 247742 That's when gas and coal were in play. Gas and coal were the future! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie. Mr ALBANESE R36 something I assume the current Leader of the Opposition voted for when it came in. I'm asked about international advantages, and the Leader of the Opposition has enthusiastically promoted US based company NuScale's small reactor technology. But last November this poster child of the opposition collapsed because of rising costs, taking with it $600 million of American taxpayers' money. In a speech to the Institute of Public Affairs in July last year, the Leader of the Opposition told his audience that, as part of a nuclear renaissance, France would shortly commence testing on a nuclear power plant in Flamanville. The Leader of the Opposition forgot to mention that the plant is now more than a decade overdue, with the final cost—$22.3 billion—being more than four times the original estimate, and that's if it actually starts this year. In November, the shadow minister for energy said on radio that nuclear in the UK is ramping up further and further. Britain's flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear plant was initially due to be operational in 2017 and now it's going to cost— (Time expired) Royal Australian Navy 29 14:44 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering a more effective surface combatant fleet for the Royal Australian Navy, and how is this different to other approaches? 14:44 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his distinguished service. When the Albanese government came to power, we inherited from the Liberals the oldest surface fleet that the Royal Australian Navy had operated since the end of the Second World War. HMAS Anzac was on her last legs, which meant that we had 11, coming down to 10, surface combatants without the prospect of a new surface combatant entering our fleet until 2034. That was the first of the Hunter class frigates. When the Liberals announced the Hunter class frigate program, they said that steel would start being cut in 2020, but by the time of the last election in 2022 no steel had been cut, the program was running years over time and billions of dollars over budget. There were six—really, seven—different defence ministers rotating through that chair, the last of which was the Leader of the Opposition. This stands as one of the worst examples of the lost defence decade under the Liberals and the shambolic way the Liberals managed Australia's national security. In coming to office, we commissioned a review of the surface fleet, and in February this year we announced a new fleet for our Navy which would, in time, see a doubling of our surface combatants and, importantly, the first of those new surface combatants coming into service this decade, in the 2020s. Unlike the plan of those opposite, this plan was fully funded, and that is critical because it gives Navy the predictability to allow us to go out there and build those ships. Last week, we took a giant step forward in that regard. On Thursday, we signed contracts for the first three of the six Hunter class frigates which will form a part of the Royal Australian Navy, and on Friday we cut the first piece of steel under that contract which will form a part of HMAS Hunter. It's a huge moment. HMAS Hunter will be an exquisite capability—the most potent undersea warfare frigate in the world. This program will employ 2½ thousand Australians and, in combination with the building of our future submarines and extending the life of our Collins class submarines, it will see the Osborne Naval Shipyard become home to 7,000 workers engaged in high-tech manufacturing. The contrast with the Liberal circus could not be more stark because the Liberals were a defence disaster. The Albanese government is doing everything it takes to keep Australians safe. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 29 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Brooks, Mr Simon, Sinclair, Mr Joshua 29 14:47 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to advise the House that we have the mayor of Mornington Peninsula Shire, Counsellor Simon Brooks and the CEO from the Committee for Frankston and Mornington Peninsula, Mr Joshua Sinclair, as guests of the member for Dunkley. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 29 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Nuclear Energy 29 14:47 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Prime Minister. UK Labour is currently campaigning with a manifesto which calls for new nuclear power stations and small modular reactors to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Why is the Albanese Labor government risking the lights going out in Australia instead of using nuclear energy, which is proven around the world to deliver cheaper, cleaner— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! We'll do this as long as it takes, but if I can't hear the question, it's the same principle as the time before. To get through the questions, if everyone can cease interjecting, we'll get through more questions. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Social Services is warned. The member for Moncrieff will begin her question again. Ms BELL 282981 My question is to the Prime Minister. UK Labour is currently campaigning with a manifesto which calls for new nuclear power stations and small modular reactors to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Why is the Albanese Labor government risking the lights going out in Australia instead of using nuclear energy, which is proven around the world to deliver cheaper, cleaner and more consistent energy? 14:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. I am asked about the British election campaign, and I won't refrain from the obvious. As Prime Minister, I wish both Rishi Sunak, who I know well, and Keir Starmer well in the election that will be held next week—next Thursday. We'll wait and see what happens there. Honourable members interjecting — Mr ALBANESE R36 But, when it comes to the UK—do we have to have the gibberish, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will ignore the interjections, and the Manager of Opposition Business will assist. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm asked about Britain. I notice there weren't interjections about the sun shining in Britain! I notice that, because those opposite seem to think that every country is the same. The UK began its nuclear program in the 1940s. They have decades of work on a nuclear industry. And for them— Mr Littleproud 265585 There's a lot of wind. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 As the International Energy Agency says, nuclear will play an important role in a range of countries. But, for Australia, it does not make sense. It does not make economic sense. When it comes to Britain, the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant was initially due to be operational in 2017. It was supposed to cost $35 billion. Now it will open sometime after 2031, more than a decade late, and it will cost about $90 billion for one reactor in the UK. That's why when I'm asked about other jurisdictions—let's talk about some jurisdictions closer to home. New South Wales opposition leader: 'We can't wait for nuclear.' Victorian opposition leader: 'There are prohibitions in place, so I'm not racing along the nuclear path.' Victorian Nats leader: 'You wouldn't be surprised that our view is exactly the same as John Pesutto's.' Queensland LNP leader: 'I've been very consistent with it. Nuclear is not part of planning in Queensland.' The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Moncrieff will take her point of order. Ms Bell 282981 It's on relevance. We were talking about the UK nuclear program, not the New South Wales— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The member is entitled to state a point of order on relevance, but the Prime Minister is being directly relevant. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I hate to state the obvious, but they've just said that David Crisafulli, Peter Walsh, John Pesutto, Mark Speakman, Shane Love and Guy Barnett are all irrelevant. Well, they are as far as their plan is concerned, because their plan is friendless amongst their own people, amongst the business community and amongst anyone in the energy sector. Future Made in Australia 30 14:52 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How will Australian manufacturing workers help to deliver a future made in Australia, and how is the Albanese Labor government backing these workers? What views has the government rejected? 14:53 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I thank the member for Cunningham not just for the question but for being a champion of Australian manufacturing. We know that Australians want their country to be a place that makes things. Strong economies have strong manufacturing capabilities. Our Future Made in Australia plan is about being able to mobilise Australian manufacturers to make the things that will reduce emissions and generate strong jobs along the way, from new-generation solar panels that can be made in the Hunter and electrolyser manufacturing in Gladstone through to the making and recycling of batteries in outer suburban Melbourne. But if you want to regenerate and revitalise manufacturing, you need a committed government that will work with industry and back manufacturing workers. That's why we have set up the National Reconstruction Fund and the Industry Growth Program and are pushing for a future made in Australia. But we're also backing manufacturing workers, because, from 1 July, they will be getting a cost-of-living tax cut. We want every manufacturing worker to earn more and keep more of what they are earning. From 1 July, a manufacturing worker on $63,000 will be $1,357 better off. We are also backing manufacturing by investing in our industrial heartlands. I visited the Illawarra last week with the member for Cunningham, where there's excitement about offshore wind development and where renewable projects will generate thousands of blue-collar jobs— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr HUSIC 91219 and will generate cheaper energy for other manufacturers to do their work— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr HUSIC 91219 Renewable energy projects, delivering cheaper energy and more jobs—that is how you deliver cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up power prices with the most expensive form of energy going. Every time we have sought to back Australian manufacturing, the Liberals and Nationals have opposed it. When we wanted to set up the National Reconstruction Fund, the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. When we wanted to deliver energy price relief for manufacturers, the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. And, when we wanted to deliver tax cuts for manufacturing workers, the Liberals and Nationals wanted an early election to stop them. Of course, this is the mob that saw off car manufacturing in this country and, to this day, say it was absolutely the right thing to do. That's what they say. This government believes manufacturing can deliver a future made in Australia; that side only talks about manufacturing to talk it down. Nuclear Energy 31 14:56 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn My question is to the Prime Minister. Former Australian Workers' Union secretary Dan Walton said: If Australia wants to accelerate along the path to becoming a zero-carbon economy, this is a golden opportunity to create the capacity to build small modular reactors capable of powering energy-hungry manufacturing. Does the Prime Minister support the union movement's call to lift the nuclear energy moratorium? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker and the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme will cease interjecting. 14:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question about a business leader who he says speaks on behalf of the entire trade union movement. I'll give you the big tip here: the union movement campaign will be very strong against your nuclear power plant, because what they know is that your plan will destroy jobs. Your plan will lead to higher power prices. Your plan will undermine manufacturing in this country. You do not have a plan for anything between now and the 2040s. What we have is a shortage right now. Eight power stations had shut down by the time we came to office—Redbank, Wallerawang, Anglesea, Northern Power, Playford, Morwell, Hazelwood and Muja AB—all on your watch. On their watch there were 24 separate announcements of power station closures. What they used to do was respond to that by handing a lump of coal around their front bench, thinking that that was funny. I'll give you another big tip: don't try that with uranium. What you did was make a joke of it. You pretended that coal was the future for 10 years while you did nothing. While power stations closed and energy supply went backwards, you refused to support alternative plans. You spoke about a gas led recovery and then nothing happened. You now say you're going to have a nuclear recovery. This is the same mob that replaced fibre in the NBN with copper— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Moncrieff on a point of order. Ms Bell 282981 The Prime Minister should direct his comments through the chair. The SPEAKER 53517 I remind all members about using the standing orders. Mr R36 That's the most significant point they've made today. Here's what Andrew McKellar of ACCI said. We're quoting business leaders such as Mr Walton; here's Andrew McKellar, not a Labor branch member as far as I am aware: Past failure … has crimped certainty for industry and investors, and left our energy sector in disarray. Australian businesses and households are now paying the price. Indeed they are, as a result of the failure by those opposite to set Australia up for the present, let alone plan for the future. That is what we inherited. Those are the problems that we are solving. That's why we have a positive plan going forward. Those opposite have no detail about how many reactors or about how much the cost will be. They just have rhetoric, which is all about delaying the investment that we need. (Time expired) Renewable Energy: Employment 32 15:00 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to remove financial barriers so more Australians can skill up and work in key sectors like renewable energy? How does this compare to alternative policy settings to skill our future energy workforce? 15:00 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Lingiari for her question and her strong advocacy for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the skills area in her electorate and across this country. When we came to government, we inherited the greatest skills shortage in 50 years. We also found ourselves inheriting a vocational education and training sector that was depleted and directionless, with a complete absence of national leadership. There were no agreements reached on investment or directional reform of the VET sector with any state or territory government—not one. For example, there was little or no attention paid to the transition of the energy sector, imperative to successfully decarbonise the economy and shift to renewables, the cheapest energy source available. Upon election, we started working to make up lost time. We convened the Jobs and Skills Summit, bringing constituent parts of the economy together. We established Jobs and Skills Australia to provide strategic advice in education and training and providing skills to a fast-changing economy. Last year, 355,000 Australians enrolled in fee-free TAFE in areas of demand, including in the energy sector, with a further 320,000 courses available from this year. We struck a National Skills Agreement with every state and territory, the first of its kind in more than a decade, with $30 billion of certainty of funding over five years to make sure that we supply the skills that are needed. We're providing $10,000 in financial support to clean energy apprentices. Those apprentices, of course, will be getting a tax cut next Monday, as are 13.6 million taxpayers in this country, a result of this government. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy and I announced further investment in the clean energy sector to increase teachers and trainers, to supply the skills that are needed for this sector. Ten days ago, I was in Western Australia and I was announcing a joint centre of excellence between a university, TAFE and industry in the clean energy sector. This is a plan for clean energy. This is something which the opposition's plan is devoid of. There has been no reference to a nuclear energy industry workforce plan in anything that has been uttered by the Leader of the Opposition. The reality is they do not have any details. They do not have any plans to supply the skills in this area. The main reason they don't have any plans is because in their heart of hearts they know that their so-called plan doesn't have any chance of happening. Growing Regions Program 32 15:03 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Round 1 of the $300 million Growing Regions Program fund was underspent by $93 million, despite receiving 311 suitable applications representing $1.4 billion in worthy projects. Why did the minister select just 40 of the 311 suitable applications, and will the minister carry over the unspent funds to round 2? If not, why not? 15:04 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Mayo for her question. Can I assure the member that the 40 community infrastructure projects across regional Australia that were funded out of the Growing Regions Program—including projects like the Seymour Community Wellbeing Hub, in the member for Nicholls's seat; the Mission Beach town upgrade, a great project; the Kununurra runway extension; and the Swan Hill Reinvigorating Our Riverfront project—were all selected on merit. They were part of a transparent project process that was designed to enhance integrity and transparency of grants and to clean up the mess and rorts of those opposite. As you know, the process involved a multiparty parliamentary panel of which the member for Indi was a member as part of the crossbench, so I'm very grateful for her work in doing that. But, of course, not all eligible projects were recommended for funding by my department. If you are suggesting that I should have funded 'not recommended' projects, then I'd suggest that that is not in the spirit of integrity or transparency. I look forward to opening round 2 of the Growing Regions Program shortly. There will be some changes to the guidelines, following the very helpful feedback from the Audit Office and the multiparty panel. It is my intention that this round will include the unallocated funding from round 1, making even more money available for important community infrastructure projects across regional Australia. Housing 33 15:05 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government's Homes for Australia Plan delivering cost-of-living relief, and what risky alternatives could threaten this support? 15:06 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank our terrific member for Boothby. It was great to join her in Adelaide last week—indeed, in Tonsley—where we announced 350 new and improved homes for more than 600 South Australians. That announcement, of course, came one day after we announced more than a hundred new homes in Melbourne in the member for Jagajaga's electorate. Both of these projects and announcements came from our Social Housing Accelerator—the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. It is just one part of our $32 billion Homes for Australia Plan. Our plan will help deliver more homes more quickly in more parts of Australia. We know that Australia doesn't have enough homes, and we haven't had enough homes for a long time. That is why we need our $32 billion Homes for Australia Plan. Our plan includes the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. The fund is also helping to deliver the Veterans' Acute Housing Program, with applications now open, as my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs also announced last week in Adelaide. We are working hard to tackle the challenges of housing in this country and the challenges we inherited from those opposite. We know that you deliver real cost-of-living relief not by pushing up energy prices with nuclear reactors but by working every day to deliver more homes for the people of Australia. I remind those opposite that the Housing Australia Future Fund was delayed for six months, thanks to those opposite and when they paired up with the Greens. They voted against it in this place. The first tender round of the Housing Australia Future Fund closed recently. It received hundreds of applications for tens of thousands of new homes. We'll be announcing the successful tenders in coming months, and I'll remind those opposite, when these announcements come, that they voted against this Housing Australia Future Fund. All they have on their side is their reheated thought bubble for housing—the super for housing—which we know will push up prices, wreck people's super and doesn't build a single home. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is on a warning. Ms COLLINS HWM It seems those opposite are happy to put billions of dollars on the table for nuclear reactors but not one single dollar for one new home— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I just reminded the member for Deakin that he's on a warning, and he continues to interject, so he'll leave the chamber under 94(a). Try and help me help you. The member for Deakin then left the chamber. Ms COLLINS HWM It's a shame that the member for Deakin is leaving, because he was responsible for those challenges in housing that we inherited. They've got no policies other than their super for housing, the reheated thought bubble, as I said before—not one new dollar for one new home. Their plan will push up housing prices, while we're getting on with delivering new homes for Australians that need them. We want to see more help for homebuyers, we want to see more help for renters and we want to see more help for Australians that need a safe place to stay each night. Nuclear Waste Management 33 15:09 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Prime Minister. The OPAL nuclear research reactor in my electorate of Hughes helps create lifesaving nuclear medicine supporting half a million medical procedures a year to treat conditions including breast cancer and lymphoma. When will the government tell the Australian people where the waste from this facility will ultimately be stored? 15:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hughes for her question. To be fair to the member for Hughes, she hasn't been here for the entire time in which this has been a debate and has not been landed by this parliament. What this does is point towards the difficulty when it comes to a small amount of medical based waste—a small amount; a tiny amount—compared with the extraordinary amounts of waste that are created by a major nuclear reactor, let alone seven of them. I note the Leader of the Opposition spoke about real estate values in Lucas Heights. Well, I say to the member for Hughes, when you do a direct mail, do one to Lucas Heights. It will be really easy to do one to Lucas Heights because there are zero places with Lucas Heights as a residential address—zero. In a moment of truth, the Leader of the Opposition said that real estate values hadn't gone down because it was close to there. He's right, because there are zero addresses. The medical reactor there plays an important role, just as people getting an X-ray and people engaged in that sort of activity—it's important for health care. We don't come at this ideologically; what we say is that economics should drive what happens with energy in this country, and the economics tell you that the cheapest form of new energy is renewables. They also tell you that the most expensive form of new energy is nuclear Cost of Living 34 15:12 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians with the cost of living, and what is standing in the way? 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hasluck for her question. Indeed, taking action on the cost of living is my government's No. 1 priority. In less than a week now, next Monday, the government will deliver more relief for Australians—a tax cut for every taxpayer, all 13.6 million of them, and of course at the same time a pay rise for 2.6 million workers on award wages—because we want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. There will be $300 in power bill relief for every household and $325 for every small business. We are continuing the freeze on the cost of PBS medicines and of course two weeks of additional government funded paid parental leave. This isn't the beginning of our cost-of-living help, and it's certainly not the end. But what we have managed to do is provide that cost-of-living relief while halving inflation. So, instead of having a '6' in front of it, it has a '3' in front of it. Yesterday, we announced new rules to make sure that families are getting better prices at the supermarket. We're making sure that families and farmers get a fair go. I noticed that the Leader of the National Party was still out there calling for the compulsory breakup of supermarkets. I'm not sure who he thinks would buy the Coles supermarket at Warwick, but I suspect that it might be Woolworths. I suspect that it might lead to more concentration, not less. But, to be fair to the National Party, their newfound overt embracing of socialism is there for all to see. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Mr ALBANESE R36 But while we're fighting to bring costs down they have a tax policy designed to roll back tax cuts, they have an IR policy to deliver lower wages, they have a fiscal strategy designed to rack up debt, they have a housing policy designed to wreck super, they have a health policy designed to destroy Medicare and they have a nuclear reactor plan designed to jack up power prices—a nuclear plan that costs too much and takes too long and a plan to stop the rollout of cheaper renewables and put an end to the certainty that business, industry and families need. Whistleblower Protection 34 15:15 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Attorney-General. Last week Richard Boyle lost his appeal to seek immunity under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, despite the judge acknowledging that Mr Boyle is a whistleblower. At the last election you promised to fix whistleblower protection laws, but two years on we have not seen a draft bill. Why is the government dragging its feet on whistleblower reform? 15:16 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Indi for her question. The government is committed to strong, effective and accessible protections for whistleblowers. In June last year, the government passed priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act which ensured immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblower protection scheme were in place before the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission on 1 July last year. The reforms implemented 21 of the 33 recommendations from the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 that was conducted by the eminent former public servant Mr Philip Moss. I'd note just in passing that those opposite, while in government, did nothing about the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The reforms that we passed last year in June were the first significant public sector whistleblower reforms since the Public Interest Disclosure Act was first enacted in 2013 by the Labor government then in power. We are now progressing a second, broader stage of reforms which includes the release of a consultation paper and public consultation on additional supports for public sector whistleblowers which might include a whistleblower protection authority. Submissions received as part of that consultation process are now being used to inform the government's next steps for reform. I will not be commenting on matters that remain before Australian courts. Cost of Living 35 15:17 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese government working to help regional Australians and deliver cost-of-living relief? What approaches have been rejected? 15:18 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thanks very much to the member for Hunter for the question. He's an incredibly strong advocate for his community. One of the things that we all love about the member for Hunter is that he'll give absolutely everything a go—although I was a little worried about his testing of the zip-line at the Lake Mac climbing tower last week! But well done, mate. That was quite an effort. As members from regional Australia, we do understand that people in our communities are under pressure and we do know that some of them are doing it really tough. It's why our No. 1 priority every single day is addressing cost-of-living relief for every Australian. We're working hard to deliver that cost-of-living relief to ensure that Australians, particularly those in our regions, earn more and get to keep more of what they earn. It is six days until 1 July, and that means it is six days until every Australian taxpayer will be getting a tax cut. It's six days until our $300 energy bill relief begins, and it's six days until 2.6 million low-paid workers get their third consecutive pay rise backed in by this government. At the same time we are strengthening Medicare and we're delivering cheaper medicines to every community, from the cities to the regions. We're delivering HECS relief for everyone with student debt, from the university student in Broome to the supermarket worker in Broken Hill, to the nurse in Katherine, to the teacher in Kincumber, to the cafe owner in Cairns, to the parents in Ceduna buying medicines for their kids. We are building more homes more quickly; we're helping put downward pressure on rents in our regions. We're strengthening the food and grocery code to get a better deal for the farmers and cheaper groceries for Australians. And we're backing regional jobs by incentivising and investing in developing low-carbon liquid fuels under our Future Made in Australia plan. When it comes to infrastructure and regional investment, we've increased funding across the country—in particular, increasing Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to $1 billion. That means every single council across Australia will have more money to spend on local roads, reducing pressure on ratepayers across all of those local council areas because otherwise they would have to pay for them. In two years this government, a Labor government, has delivered historic increases to local road funding that the coalition was never able to do. We know there's much more to do. That's why we are working every single day to help make the cost of living better for Australians. That is how you deliver cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up power prices with nuclear reactors all across regional Australia. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 35 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Ramsgate Public School 35 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 ():  Before members leave, I would just remind the House we have year 5 students from Ramsgate Public School in the galleries today. Along with the member for Cook, we welcome them. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Presentation 35 15:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson ():  Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 35 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report Nos 46 and 47 of 2023-24 35 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 ():  I present the Auditor-General's audit reports for 2023-24. Report No. 46 Compliance with gifts, benefits and hospitality requirements in the Australian Communications and Media Authority: Australian Communications and Media Authority and report No. 47 Defence's management of contracts for the supply of munitions—part 1: Department of Defence. Documents made parliamentary papers. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 36 15:22 The SPEAKER 53517 ():  I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: "This Government's mishandling of energy policy that is increasing energy prices and threatening energy reliability". I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:22 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax ():  After two years of Labor, Australians are feeling poorer and Australia, as a nation, is weaker. For nearly 110 weeks the Albanese Labor government has been in power and, on average, every single one of those weeks has seen over 600 additional households sign up for hardship arrangements with their energy retailer. As of today, there has never been in Australia's history more Australians on hardship arrangements because of Labor's energy policy. Only a couple of weeks ago, I was at the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show. I met a senior citizen who made it very clear to me that she no longer has hot meals at night because she is desperately nervous about not being able to turn on the heater at night. She has to make a trade-off. But, of course, that's Queensland. There are places right across Australia where we have senior citizens who can neither heat nor eat at night because they cannot afford it. I was speaking to the Salvos in Maroochydore only a couple of weeks ago. They were explaining to me how they are seeing a completely different set of people coming in. It is not just those who have always been struggling in the lower socioeconomic bracket, but also middle Australia. More and more families are coming for help because they cannot afford to live. Up the hill in my area, in Mapleton, we have a multigenerational family running the IGA. They're going to have to close their doors because of energy prices. All of these people have something else in common, and it's not just the fact that they are finding it hard to make ends meet. Every single one of them was looked in the eye by the now Prime Minister and promised a $275 reduction in their household power bills. They were made that promise 97 times. This was the same Prime Minister who said that his word is his bond, and yet he has let these people down. Still to this day that Prime Minister and the minister who sits at this table opposite me now have failed to show the courage to look the Australian people in the eye and say that that promise will be broken. Now it's his opportunity to stand in this chamber, after I speak today, and come clean. That promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills will never be met. This is a minister whose own electorate is in the state of New South Wales. There are people in New South Wales who, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, will be paying over $1,000 more for their electricity bills than this minister promised them. This is how bad it is. Over last year's and this year's budget, this government announced $6.5 billion in energy relief packages. No doubt the Labor backbench will get up and give their talking points about this. This is billions of dollars to mop up the failure of the minister who sits right here at this table. And guess what? He still can't achieve his $275 reduction in household power bills. I gave this minister the benefit of the doubt over the first year or so in office. I thought to myself, 'I will give him the benefit of the doubt; he is unconsciously incompetent.' But he now knows full well what is happening, and he still will not come clean, which makes him consciously incompetent. That is a far worse situation, because he knows full well that the people to whom he told untruths are out there struggling to turn their lights on, keep the heating on and cook their meals at night. Yet he goes out still and promises them false prophecies of a world in which prices will come down. But no serious energy commentator agrees with his forecast—his prediction. This is why we have the problem we have. We have had accusation after accusation from this government, calling on the opposition to release the costings of our energy policy. We have made it very clear; we shall do that in due course and well ahead of the next election. We say that from opposition. Here we have a government that has been in power for two years and still to this day cannot tell the Australian people the cost of its energy plan. The minister can now interject if he likes and tell us the cost of his energy plan. The cost? I welcome the interjection. If the minister does not wish— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You might wish to—Member for Fairfax! I've allowed a lot of personal [inaudible] here, but you need to direct your comments through me, in the chair. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 I apologise, Deputy Speaker, but if the minister wishes to interject with the costings of his policy, he is more than welcome to do so right now. It's not taken. Note that for the Hansard. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was given three opportunities to answer the question about the total system cost of his plan—two questions, one intervention, three times. Not once could he tell us the number. Last night, though, we had the minister go on television and say the total system cost will be $121 billion. But does that include projects like Snowy 2.0? No. What about CopperString? No, it doesn't include that, either. Does it include all behind-the-metre investments made by consumers? No, that's not part of it, either. How about the distribution network? The minister decided he was going to lecture the House today about the difference between transmission and distribution. The distribution network is not included. So maybe I was wrong. Maybe it's not unconscious incompetence; maybe it is unconscious incompetence. Either way, he is wrong—$121 billion. Since this government and this minister are incapable of saying the cost, let's go to the Princeton University, University of Melbourne and University of Queensland Net Zero Australia study, which makes it clear that it's $1.2 trillion. That's with a 'T', Minister—trillion dollars. This goes to why we're in this trouble right now. If the minister himself doesn't know the costing of his plan, it's no wonder Australians are now paying among the highest electricity bills in the world. This government has stalled on its renewables rollout. It is running, according to experts, at one-third of the pace at which it should. This government is suffocating the supply of gas in this country. Right now we have market operators speaking to companies, asking them to not produce so much through winter—down tools, produce less—for fear that, otherwise, households can't use gas. We have, under this minister, 90 per cent of Australia's base-load power exiting the grid over the next decade. Has this minister ever stood and spoken about the need to ensure that we do not prematurely close base-load power stations without a replacement? Never, not even with his own counterparts in New South Wales about the Eraring extension. He's on record saying, 'At most it's maybe a couple of months.' They recently came out saying 'up to four years'. This is the level of incompetence of this minister and of this government, and who pays the price? I'll tell you who: the senior citizen I spoke to at the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show—that's who. The people who are rocking up to the Salvos and Vinnies, needing help, are the ones who will pay for this absolute incompetence. And it goes on and on. At the end of the day, under this incompetent Labor government—which still, to this day, cannot cost its own policy in government, with all its resources—it's the Australian people who are hurting. There's a reason why Australians feel poorer today than they did two years ago. That's because they are. Australia as a nation is weaker because of this government, and the minister who sits across from me today is now welcome to stand up and explain to the Australian people the total system cost of his energy plan through to net zero 2050. Minister, it's all yours. Give us a number. 15:32 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon What a great opportunity for the House to consider the choice before them at the next election when it comes to energy policy for this country. The member for Fairfax talked about false prophets and false prophecies. I was going to say that he didn't talk about his own policies at all during the MPI, but he did when he mentioned false prophets and false prophecies. The other thing I was going to say about the shadow minister is that we normally know less about his policies at the end of one of his interviews than at the beginning. We see that regularly. We saw it on at 7.30 last week. We saw it on Insiders on the weekend. He opens more questions than he answers when it comes to his own energy policies, and that's deliberate, because the answers are no good. The answers are no good because nuclear is the most expensive form of energy and it's the slowest to roll out. But the shadow minister poses questions about the cost of our renewable transformation. He did so during question time today, and, in that instance, he showed his fundamental misunderstanding of the choices before the Australian people. He asked, about the $121 billion, which is the cost which has been identified by AEMO, the independent market operator, for the transformation to renewable energy, 'Does it include distribution?' He seems to think we need more telegraph poles if the energy comes from solar panels and wind turbines than if it does from nuclear reactors. The cost is exactly the same for distribution, regardless of the form of energy that is used. Regardless of whether it's coal, gas, renewables or nuclear, we don't need more telegraph poles. He's fundamentally showing that he misunderstands the choice before the Australian people, and he's showing he misunderstands the work by AEMO. He's normally bagging the work by AEMO. When he's not bagging it, he's misunderstanding it. The honourable member talks about costs under this government. He did not mention that when they left office the price of power, the price of electricity, in the wholesale market was $376 a megawatt hour and it is $75 a megawatt hour now. He didn't mention that was a target that his predecessor, as minister for energy—his predecessor, my predecessor—the member for Hume set to get the megawatt hour price at the wholesale level down and he failed to do so. He certainly did not mention that, just before the last election, the then minister for energy was so worried about the impact of their government's nine years of neglect, with four gigawatts of dispatchable power leaving the grid and only one gigawatt coming on, that he had to change the law to hide 20 per cent increases to energy prices until after the election. Again, we have a contest about alternatives. We have our plan for our renewable energy. The opposition are having trouble working out whether they think there is too much renewable energy happening or not enough. They really have to pick a lane. They say there is so much renewable energy. The Leader of the National Party says this rush to renewable energy, there is too much of it happening. They need to cap it. They need to intervene to stop this renewable energy happening. At other times the shadow minister says there is not enough renewable energy to replace the coal leaving the grid. These are the coal closures that were announced under them, and they had no plan to fix it. Their proposal was to fund a new coal-fired generator in Collinsville, which didn't happen, and that was it. They had the UNGI scheme, which should have been called the 'unfortunately no generation involved scheme', because it did generated not one electron of new power. That is what we inherited when we came to office. What we're doing instead is seeing renewable energy in our grid up 25 per cent since we came to office, 8.5 gigawatts since we came to office, which they could not do. Let's come to the question before the Australian people at the next election about the choice between the plans. The shadow minister raises cost and reliability. Well, we know that nuclear is the most expensive form of power available. GenCost by AEMO and the CSIRO has shown that time after time. The member for Fairfax has quite outrageously and improperly called it 'Labor's GenCost'. It is not Labor's GenCost; it is not a Liberal GenCost; it is the GenCost of the CSIRO and AEMO. It was prepared when those opposite were in office. I am sure that they did not interfere, that they didn't seek to write the report—they couldn't if they tried. It showed nuclear energy was the most expensive then and it shows that now. What is the member for Fairfax's big get out of jail card? He says that it is about the cost of construction and that that is the cost for investors; it is not about consumers. Apparently nuclear energy is the only form of energy in the world—the only form of any commodity—that can be really expensive to build but nobody has to make a profit back because of that capital expense. He fundamentally ignores the evidence. It is a fact-free and evidence-free zone when it comes to the cost of nuclear energy for those opposite. We have had many claims from those opposite that we should do nuclear because it is going to keep the costs down like the rest of the world. Well, let's just see. The member for Fairfax talked about NuScale. It is the big poster child of renewable energy. NuScale is the small modular reactor. He pointed to it. He visited it. He has talked about it ad nauseum. He doesn't talk about it so much anymore because it didn't happen. It was cancelled because the cost blew out from $3.6 billion for 720 megawatts to $9.3 billion for just 462 megawatts and it was cancelled. They keep telling us SMRs—small modular reactors—are coming. We saw the shadow minister—and really I have to pay credit to his agility—on 7:30 last week. He was asked a pretty straightforward question: 'Small modular reactors form part of your policy. How many Rolls-Royces small modular reactors are there in operation in the world?' He said, 'They are advancing very quickly.' He had four goes and, in the end, Sarah Ferguson answered it for him: there are none, not one commercial small modular reactor, anywhere in the world. The opposition keep saying, 'They are coming.' To be fair, the Liberal Party has had many chances to implement small modular reactors. They keep saying they are coming. One of the shadow minister's predecessors, as shadow minister, said, 'You would know that new-generation reactors with maximum safety features are now coming into use. They are small, from 250 to 400 megawatts, fully automated and overcome the many safety problems associated with a large-scale reactors of the past.' Who said that? It was the shadow minister for the environment in 1989. Since 1989 they have been talking about small modular reactors. Of course, we have big reactors as well. The Leader of the Opposition said he was against them, they weren't going to happen, he was going to oppose it, and now they are going to build five—less than 12 months later. And what's the best-case practice there? Hinkley C in the United Kingdom, where the people of the United Kingdom were promised it would be 'cooking turkeys by Christmas 2017' at a cost of A$17 billion Australian, is now estimated to finish in 2031 at a cost of A$92 billion. These are the sorts of experiences we're seeing overseas. Again, we hear the shadow minister and the opposition saying that 19 out of 20 countries in the G20 have nuclear or are proposing it. It's not true: Germany has cancelled its entire nuclear fleet and says it isn't returning. Other countries, including Italy, have no nuclear. Mr BOWEN DZS And, of course, they say the rest of the world is happening! I'll tell you what happened last year with nuclear generation: it fell by 1.7 gigawatts. Around the world, nuclear generation is down because nuclear reactors are closing. Do you know what's up? Renewable energy, by 507 gigawatts. So nuclear is down by 1.7 and renewable energy is up by 507 gigawatts. Solar and wind already generate more electricity than nuclear. In 2025, wind alone will exceed nuclear and, in 2026, solar alone will exceed nuclear, because this is the sensible course of action taken by governments around the world. And when it comes to reliability, let's just talk about what the opposition's real proposal is here. The Leader of the National Party, I'll give him credit, is at least honest about it. The member for Fairfax doesn't say it, but the Leader of the National Party does. What they want to do is sweat the coal assets for longer—to keep them in the grid for longer. Rely on coal-fired power for longer—that's what they want to do. And the thing about coal-fired power, as it ages, is that it's increasingly unreliable. It's old, it breaks down more; it breaks down so often and unexpectedly that it causes a reliability challenge for our grid. It happens regularly in our grid; it's happening today as we speak. Those opposite would make our energy system less reliable by relying on it more. And, of course, emissions would be much higher for longer, but they would rely on coal-fired power for longer, which would reduce reliability in our grid. Every claim the opposition makes about nuclear power evaporates at the first sign of scrutiny. The honourable member talks about Ontario. He says that power is so much cheaper in Ontario. He doesn't talk about the $6 billion in annual energy rebates which make power cheaper in Ontario at a cost to the Ontario taxpayers. He says that Ontario's power is cheap, but he doesn't look at Quebec next door, where over 90 per cent of power is generated from renewable hydro, and they only pay half as much as the people of Ontario. The Leader of the Opposition said that waste is not an issue—it's only one can of Coke worth of waste from a small modular reactor. Well, the Leader of the Opposition was completely wrong. It's about 286 cans of Coke from modular reactors in terms of that comparison. That's more like a tennis court. What we have are 12,500 cans of Coke highly radioactive waste each year from a small modular reactor. If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand his own policy, how can we trust him to implement it? (Time expired) 15:43 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay The High Streets across our country are slowly being stripped of life because they just can't afford the bills. I know this; it's happening in my own community. Each day I wake up to a new local story that says another business has closed its doors. Business insolvencies right across the country are at record highs. The member opposite should be concerned because it's heartbreaking that Western Sydney has some of the highest rates—Western Sydney, where his electorate is. Six out of 10 business failures are in the west, but he's walking out the door, turning his back on his own electorate when he could be hearing the stories of the people who are behind these small businesses in Bringelly, Merrylands, Guildford and Canterbury. Why is this occurring? Because they just can't pay the bills. And the top one, the top bill they can't afford, is their energy bill. A gym in Penrith was paying around $12½ thousand or $13,000 for energy. Now they're paying $27,000. How is this sustainable? It's absolutely not. Do you know what is going to happen? They're going to close their doors as well. It's not just the cafes and the gyms which are struggling, as heartbreaking as that is; it is also our Australian manufacturers—those manufacturers across Western Sydney that are making Aussie made and are a heavy industry. Do you know what they rely on? They rely on 24/7 reliable energy. Their lights can't go out. They can't put solar panels on the roof. They could have all the solar panels in the world, but they need gas. They need affordable gas. They are making products that our country relies on and that will lead us into the future. They need gas to be making steel. They need gas to be making some of our country's most important safety products, our railways and our roads. The importance of sovereign manufacturing is critical, but right now they are struggling under this government's energy prices. I've talked about our small businesses and our manufacturers, but do you know who is struggling the most? It's people—the people across our country, in Western Sydney and in all parts of our nation. As my colleague the member for Fairfax said, people are on hardship payments for their energy bills like never before. There are 600 more each week needing support just to pay their energy bills. People are coming up to their local members on the street, saying that they can't afford to both eat and heat. They are lining up at our food banks like never before. I've spoken to some of our local charities who say that the people who they are feeding have double incomes. They're not only feeding these people but helping to pay their bills. They're coming to a food bank and saying, 'I can't afford my electricity bill,' and that food bank is helping them to pay it. Now that very food bank that is helping Australians in need is struggling because their own energy prices are up, and they don't know how much longer they can keep their doors open. At one stage, there was hope. That hope was given by the Australian Labor Party at the last election when they told the Australian people that their energy bills would be $275 cheaper. That hope has been completely slashed now. How can you say something 97 times and not be committed to it? How can you break a promise so big that you said it 97 times to the Australian people? They haven't admitted to this broken promise, and when we look at the numbers that $275 is now completely gone. People across Western Sydney are now paying over a thousand dollars more for their electricity. Every single person in Western Sydney is struggling—those small businesses, those cafes who tell me that sometimes hardly anyone walks through the door, that gym in Penrith which is at threat of closing and that food bank that is supporting people on double incomes. Do you know what? A grant that I just got into our schools is now feeding kids who aren't being fed before going to school. This is a disgrace. 15:48 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby This matter of public importance would be hilarious if the issue wasn't so serious. The Liberal and National parties—the parties of 22 failed energy policies, which oversaw the announcement of the closure of 24 coal fired power stations without doing anything about it to prepare for the impending power shortage and that changed regulations to hide rising power prices before the 2022 election rather than being honest and transparent with the electorate—are bringing a matter of public importance on energy policy. The Albanese government was elected on a platform of climate change action and energy transition—cheap, renewable energy to power our industries, our businesses and our homes. Industry gets it. Investors get it. The recent large-scale energy storage tender was massively oversubscribed, because investors and industrialists know this is a good investment for Australia's future and for the return on their investment. Compare and contrast it with the opposition's new nuclear—to call it a policy would be to overstate it. It's a nuclear thought bubble. In a speech at the National Press Club mere weeks ago, the shadow Treasurer insisted nuclear reactors would be commercially viable and could be built without taxpayer subsidies. The argument was that the free market and private investors would decide to back nuclear because it would provide a return on investment, that the taxpayer would not be on the hook to pay for them. Fast forward to now, and guess what happened? No investors, no banks, no investment funds—no-one will touch them, and we the Australian taxpayers, Australian families, will be paying for their nuclear fantasy. Well, that was a bit of a turnaround. So how much are we up for? Your guess is as good as mine. We know that they've selected seven sites, but on ABC Insiders on the weekend we discovered that they would set up some sort of external body to decide how many reactors would be at each site. So they don't know how many reactors will be on each site, and maybe that's why they can't cost them. Of course, the plan includes a combination of large-scale reactors, which were previously ruled out by the opposition leader but brought back to the table in a 9.75 point Olympic-grade backflip—a reference to you, Dan—and small modular reactors, which are not in operation anywhere in the world and which, when they have been commissioned to be built, have been prone to massive overruns to the extent that projects and companies have gone broke. This is the investment deal that the Liberal and National parties, who gifted the Australian taxpayer a trillion dollars worth of debt, are offering us, a deal that no bank and no investment fund will touch with an unknown price tag. But, wait, there's more. Even if these reactors were able to be built, they would provide Australia with an unknown about of energy—because they can't tell us that bit either—from a combination of what is calculated to be the most expensive form of energy, small modular reactors, and the second most expensive form of energy, large-scale nuclear reactors. So you get to pour your taxpayer dollars in to produce an unknown amount of energy which you will then pay top dollar to use. And if you think your solar panels on your rooftop will save you from this terrible cost impost, think again. In order to make the nuclear plants viable, they cannot have cheap renewable power flooding the grid and undercutting expensive nuclear power, which needs to be on all the time, so they will be reaching into your solar panel systems and turning them off, cutting them off the grid to further subsidise their nuclear fantasy. Now, I'm about to run out of time and I haven't even got to how they will cover the power shortfall between the power stations exiting the grid and a theoretical first nuclear reactor being built, let alone an unknown number of reactors around seven sites, but experts calculate that this gap will put up your power bill about a thousand dollars a year over the next decade. And what will they do with tonnes of radioactive waste? What about the issues with the sites they picked—sight unseen, without community consultation, without approval of the owners—some which are already being used for other purposes. How are they going to tackle the state and federal legislative barriers? We know they aren't very good at water, but where are they going to get water for these reactors? I could go on and on and on. This government's steady, managed transition to renewable energy, with storage and firming as needed, is supported by private investors and modelled to provide cheap energy. In comparison, those opposite want you to pay while you wait, pay through the nose to build the nuclear fantasy, and then pay top dollar— (Time expired) 15:53 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee The lack of rain in my electorate of Mallee hasn't just wrecked the start of the cropping season for farmers; the lack of wind has been miserable for so-called windfarms as well. Our first wind drought since 2017 highlights what the Germans call dunkelflaute, or the dark doldrums for renewable energy, when the sun is not shining and the wind isn't blowing. The nationals warned Labor and the Greens for a long time about the danger of relying on intermittent energy to replace coal and gas baseload power. Labor are struggling, at great taxpayer cost, to deliver large-scale batteries and Snowy Hydro 2.0 to back up renewables. Not only has the cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0 blown out sixfold to $12 billion; Snowy Hydro has also suspended their rain-generating cloud-seeding program for the first time in 20 years. As the Labor and the Greens 'green dream' becomes the cost-of-living nightmare we predicted, the coalition have electrified the national energy debate, promising a proven technology, relied on by 32 other countries, with 440 power plants worldwide. Adding baseload zero emissions nuclear energy to the grid will cost a fraction of the $1.3 trillion that the renewables only approach is expected to cost, which we are all paying for in our energy bills. In Ontario, Canada, where nuclear energy is 60 per cent of their energy mix, households pay 14c per kilowatt hour—lower than any state or territory in Australia. Let's remember: South Australia is the poster child of Labor's and the Greens' dream, with their current 75 per cent renewables mix due to rise to 85 per cent by June 2026. But its current cost is over 50c per kilowatt hour. In my home state of Victoria the Allan Labor government have a legislated target of 95 per cent by 2035, yet the same Victorian government claimed we are running out of gas—which is Labor gaslighting once again, because we actually have plenty of gas. The Victorian state government is locking up future gas exploration in a Labor ideological campaign for an exclusively wind-solar energy mix. Labor have been mugged by reality, with the Albanese government having to accept gas will now have a role in our energy future. However, AEMO has been warning about impending gas shortages which are suddenly upon us because Labor has undermined gas investment in our country. AEMO have now threatened to prop up gas supply in the east coast market, including potentially requiring producers, pipeline operators and storage providers to ensure sufficient supply. Labor's reckless rush into 'renewables only' as a supposed energy solution has not only put energy reliability in jeopardy; in my electorate of Mallee they are threatening prime agricultural land and pristine bushland with 400 kilometres of the VNI West transmission line, which is attracting wind turbine and solar panel proponents to divide communities with ham-fisted community consultation. Let's contrast the land footprint of wind, solar and nuclear. Nuclear energy occupies 360 times less land than wind and 75 times less land than solar. That's not to mention the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines that Labor's 82 per cent renewable generation by 2030 would require criss-crossing regional Australia. While Labor are in their own dunkelflaute—or the dark doldrums—the coalition will keep the lights on, shining brightly, with an all-Australian energy future underpinned by zero-emission 24/7 nuclear energy. 15:57 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Last week the Leader of the Opposition stood in Sydney and made an important announcement about my electorate in the Hunter. He stood over 250 kilometres away and told the people in my electorate they would be getting a nuclear power station. He didn't even have the guts to tell it to their faces, and the half-baked announcement he made won't address our energy needs. Imagine proposing a solution to an issue that doesn't actually resolve the issue until years after it's needed. It seems hard to imagine, but that's exactly what those opposite have done. Let's simplify this. Ninety per cent of our coal-fired power stations will come to their end of life by 2035. This means we will have to replace the gap this will leave in our energy supply. We could easily continue to build on the progress we are already making. We have renewable energies booming and more to come with offshore wind. We have battery technology being used to store the energy we are harvesting. We have super batteries going into sites at Liddell, Eraring and Lake Munmorah. We have pumped hydro sites established in the Hunter, with construction well underway, and we have firming power like the Kurri Kurri gas plant. All bases are covered. Those options provide stability to the grid and firming power when it's needed. We can continue with the current progress and have enough power in the grid come the time when most of the coal-fired power stations close in 2035. The transition would be seamless. But the geniuses opposite me have come up with another plan. They have suggested we could spend all our money on nuclear power that will take 20-plus years to build and won't be ready when our coal-fired power stations reach their end of life. And that is only if a miracle can be performed. Those opposite, despite not one of them having experience in the nuclear sector, expect that Australia, which has no experience in the nuclear energy industry, to build these power stations faster than anyone else in the world ever has. Talk about mishandling energy policies and threatening reliability! I may not be a mathematician but it is clear that this does not add up. I know which option sounds to me more like a renewable energy policy, and it is not nuclear. This is a pretty big stuff-up from the bloke who wants to be our Prime Minister. But it gets worse. The only thing bigger than this stuff-up will be the bill for the project, a project that leaves the lights off for years. We know this, not because the Leader of the Opposition told us in his half-baked policy announcement, which didn't include those details, but because the CSIRO has told us that the cost of power for nuclear reactors is up to eight times more than firm renewables. The Leader of the Opposition said that the nuclear power station at Liddell would support jobs for decades to come. But he ignored one very important fact: we already have big plans for that site, plans that won't require compulsory acquisition. We announced earlier this year the billion-dollar Solar Sunshot plan that will see SunDrive Solar setting up a manufacturing plant on this site, creating over 5,000 jobs in the next decade. Just today it was announced that there will be another 50 jobs in the solar panel recycling centre on-site there as well. My opposition to this plan for nuclear power in the Hunter is not ideological. Plenty of other countries around the world, like France, use nuclear power—and that is great for them. My opposition to this proposal for Muswellbrook is around the impact it will have on the jobs plans for our region. This half-baked plan from those opposite puts all these jobs under threat. The coalition's policy does not create jobs; it rips them out of the Hunter. Over 5,000 jobs will be ripped out of the Hunter for a nuclear power station that has not been costed, that has not been consulted on and that creates more questions than answers. The cost of these job losses to communities like Muswellbrook and Singleton will be devastating and felt for decades. At the end of the day, this plan is too expensive, it hurts my community and it is the most expensive form of power out there. The Hunter deserves better and so does Australia. We had the member for Fairfax in the Hunter in Muswellbrook on Friday. He didn't tell anyone he was coming. He didn't tell any media outlets. He didn't even tell people around the town that he was coming. He just snuck on in there, after the disgraceful announcement that Peter Dutton made, because he did not have the guts to come to the Hunter and do it. We deserve better in the Hunter and Australia deserves better as well. 16:02 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey In Australia we are told that renewables are the cheapest form of energy—the cheapest form of electricity at least. In South Australia—on the mainland; apart from Tassie Hydro—we lead the nation with 71.5 per cent of our electricity grid delivered from renewables last year. Second is Victoria, with 36.8 per cent. So, in South Australia, we are double the next state in Australia. But here is the catch: we also have the highest electricity retail prices, at 45.3 cents per kilowatt hour. The next highest is New South Wales, with 33.84 cents—the source for this is Canstar Blue. For the record, Victoria is 30.42 cents per kilowatt hour. So South Australia has a 50 per cent higher electricity retail bill per kilowatt hour than the next state in Australia, and we have double the next state in renewable energy. If renewable is the cheapest and we have the most in South Australia, why is it that our retail prices are the highest? There are two main reasons. First is the intermittent nature of wind and solar and the need for an alternative dispatchable source capable of powering the whole network at any time. The second is renewable subsidies, invisible to the wholesale market but embedded in the retail market. I wrote an article for a recent newsletter. It could have been virtually any evening in late autumn—that's our traditional calm period in South Australia. This particular evening it was 8.10 pm on 27 May. South Australia was consuming just over 1,800 megawatts of electricity; however, just 56 megawatts, or three per cent, of this requirement was coming from our 2,742 megawatts of installed renewable capacity. I regret to inform this place that our batteries were flat and contributing just five megawatts. Gas and coal were supplying the other 97 per cent, either generated in South Australia or coming from Victoria. This situation is common in autumn. We had months of it. To explain, when renewables begin their penetration of a market, it's an easy fit because the full backup is available from existing generators. However, as renewables gain market share, with the aid of subsidies I might point out, they are able to undercut the baseload generators. Investment stalls, equipment wears out and eventually baseload generators withdraw from the market, just as they did at the Northern Power Station in Port Augusta around a decade ago. So while baseload generators are unprofitable, and there are fewer days that we need them, in times of low renewable generation they are absolutely essential. The system cannot keep operating without them. So until the day renewables can supply energy for 24/7, 365 days a year a full backup system is required. Even if it is just for one or two days a year, a full backup system is required. Consequently, when renewables are in short supply, disposable generation—coal and gas—goes through the roof. The more of it you need, the more you pay. So in South Australia, where we need it the most, we pay the most, and that's one of the reasons why our retail power prices are the highest in the nation—as I said, by a factor of 50 per cent. The other price driver is the hidden consumer subsidies. The electricity market is a labyrinth of hidden handouts, where renewable generators can make a profit by selling their electricity for down to $60 a megawatt minus. Minus $60 a megawatt on the back of hidden consumer subsidies that are embedded in our retail accounts. Chief amongst these is the LRET, or the large generation certificates that they produce. The cost is passed on to the retailer and the retailer passes it on to the consumer, but that item is not itemised on our account. No wonder those subsidies are popular in the industry! It is a hidden subsidy. It works well in giving them a return on their money, which they would not otherwise invest. Given the political climate, investment in new coal is not going to happen. I've run out of time. That's a bit of a shame. That is why we have put nuclear— (Time expired) 16:07 Dr REID 300126 Robertson This debate on energy is important in Australia. Debate is important, but the argument that is currently coming from the Liberal opposition has exceptionally minimal detail for an extraordinarily large-scale project: minimal detail on cost; minimal detail on the time to build and the construction timeline itself; minimal detail on the legislative requirements that would be needed with the states and territories and also, quite importantly, the use of water—ocean water, fresh water and the like—and the storage of nuclear waste. All of these are important factors in this debate, but we have not heard any credible argument come from this Liberal opposition about these points. This minimal detail is underwhelming, it's disappointing but it's not unsurprising. Minimal detail has been provided to the parliament, to the scientific and energy communities, and, most importantly, to the Australian people—and that is not good enough. Let's go through a few important points when it comes to nuclear energy production. The Liberal and National Party want to build nuclear reactors right across our country. Well then, if you want to play scientist, let's go through a few things. What reactor type are we talking about? Are we talking about a pressurised water reactor, a boiling water reactor, a pressurised heavy water reactor, a light water graphite reactor, an advanced gas-cooled reactor, a fast neutron reactor or a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor? Which one? Once we've decided on the reactor type, then there are a few other not-so-minor issues we've got to go through. What fuel are we going to use for our nuclear reactor? Is it going to be enriched uranium dioxide, natural uranium or plutonium oxide? Which one are we going to use here? And what coolant? I know the member for Fairfax needs a bit of this sometimes! Is it going to be water, heavy water, carbon dioxide, liquid sodium or helium? And, at the end of the day, what moderator are we going to use? Water, heavy water or graphite? The lack of detail and clarity is concerning. Those opposite, claiming that they are a viable alternative government based on this policy alone, are not being upfront with the Australian people, which makes them reckless. It makes them dangerous and, most of all, it makes them deceptive. Further to these points, on average it takes about 9.4 years to build a nuclear power station. According to the Climate Council, Australia's first nuclear power station will take a lot longer. This is in direct contrast to the assertions being made by the Liberal Party that these nuclear facilities will be built rapidly. It's also important to note that the World nuclear industry status report 2019—which, I will just say, is considered to be the authoritative report on the status of nuclear power plants worldwide—notes: Trend indicators in the report suggest that the nuclear industry may have reached its historic maxima: nuclear power generation peaked in 2006, the number of reactors in operation in 2002, the share of nuclear power in the electricity mix in 1996, the number of reactors under construction in 1979— well before I was born. That's just on that. Now let's look at water, an overwhelmingly precious resource in Australia. In nuclear power stations, water cools the radioactive cores and the water becomes contaminated with radionuclides. Further, figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency show that 45 per cent of nuclear power plants use the sea for once-through cooling, 26 per cent use cooling towers from water mains and then lakes and rivers are used as well, dictated by what is nearest to that plant. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that one reactor requires between 1,514 litres and 2,725 litres of water per megawatt hour. That equates to billions of gallons of water per year, and all of this water requires filtering somehow. In a country where water is precious—something that they seem to not understand—this plan for nuclear energy is ultimately irresponsible. 16:12 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to speak about the government's mishandling of the energy policy and increasing energy prices. I thank the member for Fairfax for bringing this to this chamber. I'd also like to take on what the member for Reid, the good doctor, just spoke about— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Robertson. Mr WILLCOX 286535 Sorry—Dr Gordon Reid; I apologise. The member for Robertson went straight to deception, and those opposite have certainly got some form for that. While we're talking about energy prices, a $275 reduction in power prices was promised by those opposite. And where have the power prices gone? They've increased for most people by over $1,000 a year, and this is going to get worse. It's simply going to get a whole lot worse, because Labor's plan is going to impose 58 million solar panels. These solar panels only last about 15 years—they say, at the most, 20 years. There's nothing renewable about a solar panel, so what do you do with it? You have to bury it. You put it in landfill. In my previous job as mayor of Whitsunday Regional Council, we had a bit to do with landfills. They're very, very expensive to build, and then you have to monitor them. This renewable dream, this renewable fantasy, will be costing for absolutely ever. Every 15 years, or 20 years at the absolute most, you'll be throwing another 58 million solar panels into landfill. And what about the 3,500 new industrial wind turbines? They are not renewable or recyclable either. Ms Byrnes 299145 They are! Mr WILLCOX 286535 No, they're not; all the blades end up in landfills. I've spoken to the proponents of different wind turbine projects, and they've said they're simply not—same as all the concrete on the bottom of them. I said, 'Can you put another tower on top of that?' They said, 'Absolutely not, because everything moves them around and they've got to be totally replaced.' It is a cost of $600,000 to replace one of these wind turbines; that is the cost now. When you compare these costs to nuclear, which is going to last 80 years, you need to compare all the capital and do the sums on all the capital. You keep talking about renewables being the cheapest form of energy, but you can't just take through the middle of the day a solar panel between 10 and two—I've got solar at my house, a 15-kilowatt system. For those opposite, that would probably run a couple of mid-sized air conditioners. The other day I was having a look at my system, and it was putting out 600 watts. That's not enough to drill a hole; that won't even run a power drill. This is what happens when you have unreliable, intermittent technology. What's their answer to the intermittent, unreliable technology? 'I know; we'll double down on it. We'll build twice as much, three times as much, so that we have more and more intermittent, unreliable electricity.' What other components could you actually buy anywhere else, where you can go and say, 'I want to buy something,' and get told, 'Oh, no, we're not selling you that today'? It's very important that we have power 24/7 in this country, and power we can afford. What's currently happening with power costs? In my electorate they're getting so expensive. I went to an animal shelter the other day, and I said, 'How are you going with this?' They said, 'We have never been so busy.' People are being forced to give up their pets, their children's pets, their loved pets, because they can't afford to pay the energy bill. I think that is absolutely disgraceful, and I think those opposite should be doing something about that. Have a look at what's currently happening with manufacturing. You talk about manufacturing. You're never going to get manufacturing in this country until you get energy under control. Energy prices are going through the roof, and you need energy 24/7—otherwise the capital expenditure on manufacturing simply does not work. My recommendation to those opposite is: do the actual numbers. Have a look at what's happening to your power bills. Have a look at the 28,000 kilometres of power lines you want to build—not telegraph lines; that's actually for phone things. Even your energy minister has no idea— (Time expired) 16:18 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The hypocrisy of this MPI and the speakers in it is truly mind-boggling. Those opposite have spent two whole years dreaming up their 23rd energy policy, and the big reveal last week was half-baked at best—no detail, no costings and no consultation with the community. They had almost a decade to advance a new energy industry here in Australia, and they sat on their hands while 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure in the next decade, under their watch. On this side of the chamber we have a reliable renewables plan—the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy Australians deserve. In six days time we're taking $300 off power bills. In two decades Peter Dutton wants to serve up the most expensive form of energy there is. Since we've come to government we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables, record investment in batteries and storage and over 330,000 rooftop solar installations in just the last year alone. We live in a country rich with land, wind and sun, which is creating boundless opportunities for renewable energy—and we are harnessing them. We have approved more than 50 renewable projects since the last election and we are already halfway to meeting our 2030 target of 82 per cent renewables in the grid. Just 10 days ago, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was in Port Kembla to declare the offshore wind zone in the Illawarra—offshore wind, which, I will remind those opposite, was legislated by those opposite under their guidelines. This is the fourth officially declared zone in the country and it will unlock renewable energy jobs, energy security and job security—and they are good secure well-paid jobs too—while supporting onshore manufacturing powered by reliable renewable energy for the Illawarra. It will bring new employment opportunities, creating an estimated 1,740 new jobs during construction and 870 ongoing jobs. It has the potential to generate an estimated 2.9 gigawatts of electricity and that is enough to power 1.8 million homes. The zone will also power existing heavy industry like BlueScope Steel with cleaner, cheaper energy, helping to secure the future of thousands of existing jobs in the Illawarra as well as provide opportunities to attract new job-creating industries using clean energy. But those opposite are wheeling out the old mis and disinformation machine, dividing local communities and trying to create uncertainty for renewable energy projects. They've been saying offshore wind will be the end of fishing. But just last week, I was listening to an interview on ABC Illawarra with Lindsay McDougall and Steve 'Starlo' Starling. Starlo is a well-known and loved most-prolific fishing writer. He has published over 20 books, thousands of magazine articles and scores of DVDs and videos. When Lindsay McDougall asked him about offshore wind and whether this would in fact lead to more fish, Starlo said, 'If you build it, they will come, and the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and places like that are a great example of that. They certainly weren't built to cater to recreational fishermen but they attract a huge amount of fish.' They are real fishing hotspots. You are allowed to fish right up to them. I understand there has to be an exclusion zone on these, and 50 metres is quite reasonable. Most of us can cast nearly that far, so you will be able to cast right up against the structure and let your lures or baits drop down. You know, it will be fantastic fishing and that's what Starlo said. You heard it here first: offshore wind and recreational fishing can coexist. If the hypocrisy of the MPI question wasn't bad enough, how about the coalition's position on offshore wind? Even after the election, the member for Fairfax was all for offshore wind. On 25 October 2022, the shadow minister said, 'Offshore energy infrastructure has the potential to create significant investment and job-creation opportunities, as well as contribute to Australia's future energy security.' But that is not all. The Nationals are saying it too. The leader said just over 12 months ago, 'We are not against renewables. It should be offshore. That's common sense.' The SPEAKER 53517 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 45 BILLS Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 45

Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024

Second Reading 45 16:23 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved on the second reading of the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.    

The House divided. [16:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

61 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Zappia, A. 7 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Katter, R. C. Sharkie, R. C. C. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

 Third Reading 46 16:33 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 46 BUSINESS Rearrangement 46 16:33 The SPEAKER 53517 I wish to make a statement regarding the deferred division on the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business that the question be now put on the proposed suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the Member for Berowra. Standing order 133(d) does not permit a motion for closure of question under standing order 81 to be moved during a period of deferred divisions. Consequently, the division that was called for and deferred until after the MPI will not take place. The proceedings will be resumed at the point of interruption so that the Manager of Opposition Business and the Minister for Education will have the opportunity to continue their remarks. The question before the House remains that the motion be agreed to. 16:34 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that debate be adjourned.    

The House divided. [16:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

76 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 64 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Tink, K. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

BILLS 47 BILLS National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 47

National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 47 16:43 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I return to what I was saying previously. The minister is saying, 'We'll cut the costs.' You want to know what you're doing in this place. On the face of it, you say that, instead of having to go to the pharmacy twice in 60 days, now you just go in once. So this halves the income for a pharmacist. As I said previously—there's no doubt in my mind. I say: hold on a minute; if you halve the income for pharmacists, a lot of them are going to go broke. Where are you going with this? I don't notice any pharmacists in my area running around in Mercedes-Benz motor cars and going on trips overseas. What are you going to do—just wipe them out? I've always said: in politics, follow the money trail if you see something that you don't understand, and say, 'What's going on here?' So, if you're going to halve the income for pharmacists—some of the most highly respected people in our society—who's going to benefit from that? Is the consumer going to benefit? To some degree, yes. But it's a very small degree to which the consumer is going to benefit. Who benefits? Well, if there are a whole lot of the owner-operator pharmacies going broke then of course it's the big two who benefit—here we go again! It's Woolworths and Coles. And now we've got the two giants, Terry White and—the second company is eluding me at the present moment. Those two companies are on 42 per cent of the market now. There is no doubt that this move will give them another 12 or 14 per cent, and that's what's speculated inside the industry. Their percentage will now go into the mid-50s; from there, it will pay them to pay big money and go to over 60 per cent; and from there it's like Woolworths and Coles and they can charge anything they like. They've got no competition. So what appears, on the face of it, to be moronic stupidity that will wipe out one in four pharmacists in Australia—of course, in the small towns, forget about your pharmacy, it'll be gone! The thing that always intrigues me about politicians in Australia today that is so fundamentally different from the politicians 40 years ago—40 years ago they cared about people. I remember saying to the much maligned Bjelke-Petersen, 'I have a portfolio that is manned by whitefellas, and it's a blackfella portfolio.' He said, 'What do you want to do?' I said, 'Obviously, I want to change it over to blackfellas, of course.' He said, 'Bob, we don't sack.' I said: 'No, it's a policy of nonreplacement. Within three years, we'll just about achieve that goal.' He again said, 'But, Bob, we don't sack.' We cared about people; we didn't want to go around sacking people. We lost government in 1990, and within five years the ALP had sacked 12,000 railwaymen and 2½ thousand electricity workers. We had to go to computerisation, so there should have been a reduction in employment. We employed 22,000 in 1979, and 10 years later we were employing 21,000 in 1989. When the ALP came in, they were employing 7,000. So here we have it again. Don't you care about people, and don't you understand that these pharmacists are going to be destroyed? I just want to say a few words on what a great group of people pharmacists are. Trent Twomey, head of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, was head of Advance Cairns. He and I were instrumental in getting the Gordonvale CBD road made into a two-lane divided highway, which is very safe and very quick for people to get to work or move out of Cairns. He played a very real role in getting the alternative route, and I must say the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, played a very key role as well in the alternative route that cuts the round trip from the huge fruit and vegetable growing area of Far North Queensland to Melbourne by 1,800 kilometres. It's a wonderful breakthrough in saving our fruit and vegetable growers both for tropical fruit and vegetables coming out of Far North Queensland and for temperate fruit and vegetables coming out of Victoria. Trent Twomey played a key role in that. He's the head of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, but in that case he was with Advance Cairns. Michael Collins, in my own hometown of Charters Towers, put in a lot of money—I can't divulge how much, but it was an awful lot of money—to get the North Queensland Cowboys rugby league team going, which has been a great and exciting thing for the people of North Queensland. Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, I don't mind people ignoring me, but I do object when they're talking to each other across the chamber, which I think is exceptionally rude and bad mannered. My parents brought me up to not speak while other people are speaking, but obviously their parents didn't bring them up that way. So I'd ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to please stop them from talking across the chamber while I'm trying to talk. Thank you. I used the case of Michael Collins, who is so typical of pharmacists. He put real money in to get the Cowboys going, which is a wonderful thing for North Queensland. He got rugby league going in Charters Towers. He was one of five or six of us that met and got rugby league going in our own town, where three or four teams are now playing. He did a hell of a lot to rescue the schools in Charters Towers when they got into trouble—the huge boarding schools that provide a wonderful service to people of the outback, where they can go away to boarding school. He was the commentator for the country music festival and the race club. These people contribute to our community. Why would you hit these people? Why would you halve their incomes? What's the benefit to the Australian people? Infinitesimal. But what is the value to the two giants in the pharmacy industry? Colossal. I will repeat what I said earlier today. The spokesman, the assistant minister for health in the Senate, let the cat out of the bag. As I said: follow the money trail. She said—and I must say it was quite a stupid comment and quite damaging to her party, for those that picked it up—'We haven't been able to speak to the Pharmacy Guild, but we have spoken to Chemist Warehouse.' Yeah, I bet you did! You spoke to Chemist Warehouse because this will enable them and their other competitor to move into a Woolworths-Coles position in the Australian economy. For some reason, the governments of Australia and the politicians in this place have no understanding of economics. Obviously, if you have a free market system, you'll say, 'Oh, a free and open market system will deliver you cheaper prices.' No, it won't; it will deliver you an oligopoly. This is what it's done in almost every area of concern that we have in Australia. I will again refer to Woolworths and Coles. We have a potato grower that ploughs the field. Then he has to till the field. Then he has to plant the potato. Then he has to irrigate the potato. Then he has to fertilise the potato and keep the pests and diseases out—a lot of work. Then he has to pull it out of the ground, put it on a truck and take it to town. In the town, Woolworths and Coles take the potato out and put it on the shelf. He gets 45c per kilogram, and they get $4.20 per kilogram! And that's what's going to happen here. There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that once they get what the ALP is delivering to them, an oligopolistic marketplace, they will charge what they like. So, in the short term, you can say, 'Competition will reduce the price' Yeah. But in the long term you will have an oligopoly and you'll know what pricing is about. I want to say one other thing about pharmacists. They are the first line. I myself had an interesting case. I had a little pimple thing on the side of my face that was itchy, and I raced down to the pharmacy, which was still open at nearly 10 o'clock at night, and I said: 'I just want something because it's a bit itchy. It's just a little pimple.' And the pharmacist said: 'No, I think that's shingles. That's very serious indeed.' At five to 10, the doctor was still in, so I raced down to the doctor, and she said: 'It's shingles. In 24 hours you might die.' (Time expired) 16:54 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise as shadow assistant minister for regional health to address this important legislation that is a product of a strongly contested debate here in Canberra, giving effect to the measures in the federal budget that reflect the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement. It was a rocky road to the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement, as I pointed out in May 2023. At that point in time, the Minister for Health and Aged Care had brought in 60-day medicine dispensing in the previous budget without consulting the Pharmacy Guild, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia or any other pharmaceutical body. Labor didn't care about the impacts the decision would have on pharmacy businesses, especially in regional communities such as mine, where economies of scale do not protect small businesses from the losses they face. Thanks to the advocacy of the coalition and pharmacists, Labor were brought kicking and screaming to a sensible outcome. To that end, I move the following amendment that has been circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) the measures contained in this bill are only a result of sustained advocacy from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and other groups with the support of the Coalition; and (2) the bill is recognition by the Government that its initial approach to 60-day dispensing would have caused damage to all Australians who rely on their local community pharmacist". If Labor had listened at the time, pharmacists like Alexander Look from Ouyen would have been able to tell them about the precarious state of the medication supply chain. There have been shortages of common medications, including those used for infection, diabetes, blood pressure and mental health conditions. Mr Look's pharmacy is the sole provider within a nearly 100 kilometre radius, making access to basic medications an arduous journey for some of his customers. The coalition recognises that many community pharmacies are small family businesses and that it was always unreasonable to expect them to shoulder the costs of this policy alone. Indeed, just yesterday, in the other place, we saw yet another dog's breakfast outcome between Labor and the Greens that is now asking pharmacists to bear another burden. A cobbled together deal now sees Labor committing pharmacists from later this year to be the only legal outlet to sell vapes. Pharmacists no more want to sell vapes than doctors want to prescribe them. We don't ask pharmacists to sell alcohol or street drugs, and the fallout from this dodgy Senate deal is still to come. The disgrace here is that yet again the Pharmacy Guild were not consulted. The first thing they heard about pharmacies selling vapes was the Greens media release last night. True to form, the Albanese Labor government's initial and poorly consulted 60-day prescribing plans would have devastated regional communities. Labor's scorched earth approach to regional Australia has left some regional towns with their pharmacist as the sole primary healthcare provider. The loss of those pharmacies would have been catastrophic. The coalition's longstanding concern for rural, regional and remote communities to access primary care has been underpinned by the revised agreement, providing additional funding for the Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance, as part of the $1.05 billion over five years for a range of programs. The additional support will hopefully mitigate concerns for the viability of community pharmacies, particularly those in the bush. Let me paint a picture for those opposite of what life looks like beyond comfortable metropolitan electorates. Many regional, rural and remote Australians don't have urgent care clinics. In fact, 40 of the 58 electorates with them are currently held by Labor. Remote Australians and some in rural Australia don't have any urgent care at all, other than the hard work of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The urgent care regional Australians do have in regional hospitals is fast diminishing, with more and more urgent care incidents requiring flights to a capital city for treatment. In part, the crisis of diminishing urgent care is due to a combination of federal and state Labor governments actively working to merge country health services. Even the funding granted for hospital upgrades has been put on the go-slow. Residents of Maryborough and Swan Hill in my electorate have both been told to wait around another 18 months or more for their state funded hospital upgrades to actually open. Victorian Labor are penny pinching from regional health in projects costing less than $150 million, yet there has been a $200 billion cost blowout just from the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop, which has gone from $16 billion to $216 billion so far. State and federal Labor's scorched-earth approach to regional health will see fewer hospitals and other urgent care clinics close to where people live. The fact of the matter is that increasing primary preventive care in the regions is critical if we want to see a reduction in the need for urgent care of any sort. The numbers don't lie. Regional Australians have more than double the number of potentially avoidable deaths compared with city people. Rural, regional and remote Australians have a higher incidence of cancer with lower survival rates and a higher prevalence of arthritis, asthma, chronic kidney disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and vascular disease and diabetes. Many of these conditions are preventable, yet the frontline workers on preventive healthcare—GPs—number just 2.7 per thousand rural and remote Australians compared to 4.3 in the cities. Wellbeing analysis released last month revealed that, in my electorate of Mallee in North-West Victoria, four shires—Loddon, Pyrenees, Buloke and Central Goldfields—had the lowest wellbeing in the state. The buck stops with Minister Butler and the state health ministers taking the remarkable step last week of writing to the minister saying the state health system is in national crisis and urging a resumption of health funding talks. The uplift of federal funding from 40 to 45 per cent by 2033 isn't enough for the states. They want that to be the minimum funding. The states also want more than the triple bulk-billing incentive for GPs, with bulk-billing rates down 11 per cent since Labor took office. It is ironic that states that tried to harvest bulk-billing incentives through a sneaky GP tax want to see more federal money sent to GPs to lift bulk-billing. While you would hope Labor are genuinely focus on improving regional health, the minister would do well to keep an eye on state treasurers eyeing off the extra earnings for doctors and incentives for them to bulk-bill and practice in regional Australia for another tax grab in the future. While state and federal Labor undermine healthcare service delivery and fail to make meaningful inroads on improving preventive and primary care access, we see regional Australians left with very few primary care providers in their communities. Let me give an example about the prevalence of skin cancer in my own community. I had a skin cancer removed in late May, and I took the opportunity to promote skin cancer awareness in our community. In the Mildura area, according to the Australian Cancer Atlas, we have 25 per cent fewer skin cancer detections than the national average, and yet we have excess deaths from skin cancer up 34 per cent from the national average. For that reason, I've been working with stakeholders to secure a Vectra imaging machine for Mildura so we can provide better preventive health care for skin cancer. Fifteen Vectra machines have been deployed in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria as part of an Australian Centre of Excellence in Melanoma Imaging & Diagnosis trial, each costing about $10 million. But, as is so often the case when it comes to health care in my electorate, the nearest scanner is in Bendigo. Thankfully, my work pushing for a Vectra machine in Mildura is bearing fruit, and I believe there will be a positive announcement shortly. I have also been promoting preventive health to fight back against heart disease. The tragic passing of a local Mildura resident, Scott Umback, who died of heart attack while waiting for emergency treatment, galvanised our community to take action. Scott's wife, Katrina, worked with me on promoting the case for bringing this important heart health screening initiative to rural and regional communities where it is needed most. I've worked with stakeholders to ensure we have heart checks in my electorate, due to the absence of catheterisation or a cath lab in Mildura. I hope to rectify that in the coming years. But, again, I keep coming up against the same Labor roadblocks that say my electorate isn't worthy enough. Even so, my co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Rural and Regional Health, the member for Gilmore, worked with me on staging an event to promote heart checks, and this inspired Novartis and the Shane Warne Legacy project to join forces to bring heart checks to Mallee and now to Gilmore. Across May and June, Shane Warne Legacy took their heart health awareness and screening campaign into Mallee, screening over 1,168 participants. Shockingly, over 81.7 per cent had one or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The testing in Mildura, Swan Hill and Horsham included pharmacist led heart health screens in community locations such as shopping centres, at sports events and field days and in Priceline pharmacies. Mallee data highlighted a huge cardiovascular risk in regional Victoria, with many stats being higher than the national average. While 81.7 per cent of participants had at least one cardiovascular risk factor—which include high blood pressure, high cholesterol or a BMI over 30—10.4 per cent of people screened had all three. Of those tested, 42.5 per cent were immediately referred to their GP for risk management and treatment discussions. These results highlight the importance of regular health check-ups, as many CVD risk factors are not symptomatic until a health crisis like a heart attack or stroke occurs. The testing program has now moved to Gilmore. I look forward to seeing the report from there and further promotion of preventative health. In this instance of heart checks in partnership with pharmacists, I'm grateful to Novartis and Shane Warne Legacy for working with me on this proactive preventive health initiative. Two years of government underinvestment in the health of regional Australia has left regional Australians at risk. In opposition, it's important to me to work with organisations that promote preventive action so people can address health risks at the earliest opportunity and be managed at a primary-care level rather than at urgent care clinics following an emergency. I visited the Priceline pharmacy in Horsham last week, promoting the heart checks, and I'm so grateful for the many community pharmacists that reached out to me from my electorate concerned about Labor's 60-day dispensing policy originally. Labor botched their handling of the 60-day dispensing policy, and the coalition pressured the government into negotiating this new Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement to better acknowledge the important work of community pharmacies. The pharmacists turned out in force here at Parliament House in September, and Minister Butler wouldn't even meet with them. Pharmacists sat in the gallery in white coats, and the minister wouldn't even look them in the eye. Behind closed doors, however, clearly the message had been received loud and clear. Here we are today endorsing $26.5 billion in funding over five years through the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement, including a $3 billion funding boost secured through recent negotiations. The coalition will support this bill because it is the result of our strong advocacy on behalf of Australia's community pharmacy sector, which provides critical primary care to our communities. The recent round of Senate estimates has also left us questioning the impact of the government's cheaper medicines package that resulted from this new agreement. The department could not explain how the removal of a $1 discount and the freezing of the current price of medications will make medicines cheaper. The coalition will always stand up for both cheaper medicines and a viable community pharmacy sector. The new agreement is a win for community pharmacies, but questions remain as to how much Australians will save in comparison to the taxpayer dollars spent to fix the government's mistake. Therefore, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) the measures contained in this bill are only a result of sustained advocacy from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and other groups with the support of the Coalition; and (2) the bill is recognition by the Government that its initial approach to 60-day dispensing would have caused damage to all Australians who rely on their local community pharmacist". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the amendment seconded? Mr McCormack 219646 I second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak. 17:09 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will support a strong pharmacy sector, deliver cheaper medicines and boost pharmacy services across the country. The Albanese government has already saved Australians more than $370 million on the cost of their medicines. This bill supports the implementation of the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement by delivering on the commitment to establish an additional community supply support payment for eligible supplies of pharmaceutical benefits made by approved pharmacists. This will provide a means through which the Commonwealth is able to provide the necessary level of support to community pharmacies for the dispensing of PBS medicines, and ensure continued access for Australians to these medicines without increasing the cost to patients. This bill will provide more equitable access to cheaper medicines for all patients by replacing the optional $1 discount with a reduction in the patient co-payment for all patients. This will be achieved by freezing the indexation of the PBS general patient co-payment for one year and freezing the indexation of the PBS concessional patient co-payment for five years. This will mean that the cost of PBS medicines will remain constant. The government is committed to all Australians being able to access high-quality health care. This includes timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I remind members of how central the cost of medicine is to the budgeting in every Australian household. When I worked in community pharmacy, I would have patients come in with a handful of prescriptions, asking me as a pharmacist which prescription they could avoid filling or delay filling. I've also had parents, having visited the GP with two sick children, asking if they could get just one antibiotic prescription filled to share between them. Our government understood this pressure from the day we took office, and, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the health minister, we are delivering real cost-of-living relief across the country. This bill means all Australians will have more equitable access to cheaper medicines. As a pharmacist, a local MP and an assistant health minister, I commend the bill. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

58 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. (Teller) Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 82 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:22 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 53 17:22 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 53

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

Second Reading 53 17:23 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I am just off the phone from the state member for Rowe, Peter Rundle, who describes what the Labor federal government has done to his community as 'quite traumatic'. 'They have taken it to heart,' he told me. He represents the people with the most sheep in the Western Australia parliament, just as the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, represents people who have so many sheep. It is their livelihoods, it is a generational thing and it is so upsetting for those farmers. But beyond the farm gate, it is so upsetting for those communities which are, in many instances, largely underpinned by the live export trade. I received a letter on 21 May from Councillor Philip Blight, Shire President of Wagin, who, in his letter, said: The recent decision by the Federal Minister to ban the live export of sheep means that our community which has farmed here since the 1870s is under threat. The ban puts the livelihoods of not only our farmers but the entire community at risk. Across regional Western Australia this decision impacts thousands of Australians. Wagin has a population of 1,800. It's these small communities which are the heartbeat of our nation and these small communities should be respected. They have been greatly disrespected by this decision. And then we hear Labor's falsehoods about how many sheep and the value of the export trade. In 2023—and these are the facts—the total value of livestock exported from Australia was more than $1 billion. Contrary to Labor's false claims, live sheep exports are growing. According to data collected by the agriculture department, live sheep exports increased from nearly 380,000 in 2022 to more than 654,000 in 2023. And, really disturbingly—worryingly—this isn't just about economics. Sadly, in yet another dark chapter in this sorry tale, we've also learned that the Albanese government sold out the WA sheep industry for what could only be described as a 'dirty' preference deal with, of all organisations, the Animal Justice Party in the lead-up to the Dunkley by-election in March. When Minister Watt made his announcement on the shutdown deadline on 11 May, the Animal Justice Party had this to say: We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March. Ongoing conversations behind-the-scenes between AJP and Labor leadership has helped to finetune government policy. That's the quote: fine-tune government policy. This is a dirty deed, but it hasn't been done cheap—with all apologies to AC/DC and its 1976 album. This is a dirty deed but it has not been done dirt cheap, because it has come at the expense of our fine WA sheep producers. Labor has put cheap political expediency and the ideology of extreme activists over and above the livelihoods and the emotional wellbeing of our farmers and our sheep producers. And they admit that it's over and above the emotional wellbeing of our farmers, because the $107 million package for the phase-out includes emotional and rural financial counselling for those farmers. So Labor admits that this is going to be a strain on the mental wellbeing, the mental health, of our farmers, and yet they're going ahead with it. And they're going ahead with it because the AJP indicated that it needed to be so, to get their preferences at that by-election. We all know that the AJP's next target is all live animal export industries, and that is going to have such an effect on so many industries—not just sheep but cattle as well. Indeed, next they'll ban shuttle thoroughbred stallions from operating in the horseracing industry—banned from going from Australia to other places for their stud services. Mark my words, that will happen. And then they'll come after the horseracing industry per se. The Albanese Labor government's policy to end live sheep exports has caused significant tension with the WA state Labor government. They're publicly opposed, and so they should be. Premier Roger Cook has labelled the policy as unnecessary. The relationship between the Western Australian agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis, and Minister Watt also very much appears to be strained. Minister Jarvis stated that the decisions over live exports had not been in the interests of WA—and that's correct—and said: … it is difficult to see how we can work collaboratively. In government, we will absolutely restore this important industry. Unlike those opposite, we will always support our farmers and always back our farmers. And we very much back our WA sheep farmers. It's a disgrace! 17:29 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I commend the member for Riverina—a wonderful contribution as always, but an important contribution to this debate. I also need to pay tribute to the member for O'Connor. His electorate and his community are going to be directly impacted by these changes, by this government decision. I had the honour to serve with him on the agriculture committee, and we looked at this legislation in a very rushed two-week process; I'll speak to that in a minute. In my time serving here with the member for O'Connor, and serving with him on the committee, what is clear is his connection to his community, his passion for his community and his willingness to fight and to continue to fight for his community because he knows how devastating this will be to them. He knows because he is a sheep farmer; he is a farmer of the community. We heard so much testimony during the hearing about the impact this will have. So it is important that I put on record my admiration, respect and praise for the member for O'Connor, for the work he's done fighting for his community. We hope it will make a difference—if not now, then in the future. We know that there are many farmers and many community members in the west that continue to campaign to protect the agriculture community not only in WA but also across the country. We heard during the committee hearing from the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association about their concerns about this bill, the precedents it sets, and about their memories of decisions of those opposite when they were last in government—of shutting down their trade and the ongoing legal situation afoot with that. Let's take this back to basics and first principles, and understand what is happening here with this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The federal government, the ALP, are shutting down an industry. They are shutting down an industry, and that can send businesses out of business. If their decision shuts a business down they are not giving one dollar of compensation to that business, to that family or to that farmer. In the inquiry I asked the department of agriculture, 'Is any of the money that is allocated for the transition package going to compensation for businesses that are shut down by a government decision, that have to close because of a government decision?' Their answer was no. What precedent does that set for every agricultural business in Australia? What precedent does it set for every business in Australia? That this government is prepared to shut you down, close your business and give you no compensation. That's why the live cattle export industry are worried and why many other businesses and many others in agriculture are worried. We heard testimony after testimony that I will get to about the impact it will have on farmers and on families. The part that we heard was most frustrating for the industry was that it has been documented that there were challenges—there is the Awassi case. Now there is also a situation where significant money was paid to the gentleman who filmed that incident, who was the whistleblower to get this started. There is a stat dec that I'll look to table that I was not able to table—the Labor majority would not let me table that stat dec—that showed the money that had been paid to the whistleblower. There was another statutory declaration that I was not able to table, that I was denied the right to table, that alleged the whistleblower did what he did—created the situation with the footage—to create outrage. That first stat dec said that footage was sent and the person was told that that footage wasn't good enough, that the quality wasn't good enough and then, lo and behold, months later, much better quality footage was then used to shut down this industry. That is something that frustrates and devastates the farmers that are impacted. What is also galling to those farmers and those communities—and we heard testimony after testimony over this—is that, since the incident that started this, there have been systematic and significant reforms and changes. The mortality rate on ships has dropped over 80 per cent, to the point where now more sheep in a flock pass away in a paddock than on the ship. So this industry, to be clear, has learnt the lessons, taken them on board and improved their practices to the point where even those vets and other experts that criticised the industry acknowledged that Australia is leading the world in standards for animal safety with live sheep exports. This industry listened, it reacted and it was still shut down, with no benchmark given by those opposite. Let's understand how significant this impact will be, and it's acknowledged by the government. We hear from those that will vote for this bill about a just transition and how it's going to be okay. Well, it's going to be okay if you live in the city. If you live in the city, you can find another job pretty easily because there are thousands of businesses and opportunities. But that is not the case when you're on the farm and not when you are a fourth or fifth generation farmer. We know the impact, which the government acknowledged, that this legislation is going to have. To be clear, the $107 million allocated is less than the independent committee appointed by the government recommended. I would note that we put in a dissenting report. During that inquiry, we had less than two weeks and only two hearings to talk to people, stacking everything against the community and rushing the process. In that rushed process, over 35 per cent of submissions were not even read or looked at. Even in that process that was so congested, the committee urged the government to commit more money to the transition. That's how obvious it is, but we're going to vote on $107 million. That package includes support for the mental health of those impacted. Let's think about that for a second. That is an acknowledgement that this decision by this government is going to seriously impact the mental health and wellbeing of community members. If it wasn't going to have an impact like that, why would they put the money towards supporting mental health? But they're doing that without even acknowledging the hard work of the industry—ignoring everything that it has done over so many years. Then, to make it worse, they don't even have the respect for the industry or for the community to give them a proper hearing. Senator Murray Watt, the minister for agriculture, promised these communities a Senate hearing into this process. What did he give them? Less than two weeks as part of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. As I said, almost 35 per cent of submissions were not read or processed, because the secretariat did not have the capacity. I want to put on record that that's not a criticism of the secretariat. They did an amazing job in an impossible situation. I want to apologise to all those people that took the time and effort to put a submission in that was ultimately ignored because the ALP were running a sham process to rush it through. I'm sorry that your voice wasn't heard in that process. That's not how this House, this parliament or that inquiry should have operated. But the decision was made before we started. I respect the chair of the committee and those opposite. They were in a tough situation. They were given their marching orders by the minister and the government and they rushed it through and they did what they had to do—no doubt deeply uncomfortably. But this is people's lives. This isn't politics; this is people's lives. Others have referenced this, but let's understand what the government were prepared to trade. They're prepared to trade communities, people's livelihoods and agriculture for preferences in a by-election. The Animal Justice Party were nice enough to be honest about this. This is a direct quote from the Animal Justice Party: We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March. Ongoing conversations behind-the-scenes between AJP and Labor leadership has helped to finetune government policy. So this government are prepared to destroy families, communities, a whole industry for preference in a by-election. The quote is there, and it's there in their actions. For everyone in agriculture, that leaves the question: what's next? We heard testimony from those vets and other groups criticising the live trade export, and it included cattle, so how long will it be before the Northern Territory cattlemen get closed down in another preference deal with the AJP? That's the question they're asking. That's the uncertainty it has created. Those opposite say it won't happen. Well, the cattlemen remember 2011, and they'll remember this dirty deal with the Animal Justice Party. Those opposites can't make that guarantee. We saw it on the agriculture committee. Those members opposite were deeply uncomfortable, asking those questions, but they followed the orders from the leadership. We know in the ALP that, if you cross the floor, you're out. We're going to see in the next 24 hours if that still applies. So those opposite on the backbench can say that it's not going to happen to the live cattle export traders in the Northern Territory, but unless they're the Prime Minister of this country, which they're not, they can't make that guarantee. What we know is that if the Prime Minister, from the inner city of Sydney, can get political advantage by throwing another agricultural industry under the bus, he'll do it in a heartbeat. He'll sell out the Australian people. He'll sell out the hardworking farmers of Western Australia for preferences. And if that is the start, what's next? As I said, this is an industry that has made significant improvements. Mortality rates have dropped over 80 per cent in the last five years. We're recognised as having the highest standards in the world. Let's be clear: this trade will continue in the Middle East because this is cultural and this is their region. Live sheep export will continue from Africa, South America and other countries at a lower standard. This will actually lower global animal welfare standards. But it will make some feel better and it will get the ALP preferences, so it's worth throwing Australian farmers under the bus. 17:44 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Over 13 per cent of the letters that arrive in my electorate office in Mackellar are about the live export trade. It's one of the top five issues that spur constituents to write to me. Australians across the country, in both regional and urban areas, are sickened by the footage that we too often see in the media of Australian animals from Australian farms suffering on ships as they make their way to markets halfway around the world. Most recently in January of this year, we saw the example of the Israeli owned MV Bahijah ship with 15,000 sheep on board that was ordered by government officials to return to Western Australia. It was about 15 days into a live export voyage to Israel. But, because of fears about the attacks in the Red Sea by Houthi rebels, the owners of the ship proposed to sail around the Cape of Good Hope instead. This would have turned a 17-day voyage into one that was nearly two months long, with thousands of sheep crammed together for weeks on end. This was not the first time this exporter had come to the attention of authorities for horrific abuse of livestock. A related company had been the subject of an investigation in 2015. These sorts of incidents show that, despite regulation and diligence from Australian regulators, animal cruelty aboard live export ships continues. Even across Western Australia, the historical heartland of live sheep exports, people in both regional and urban areas support the phase-out of this cruel trade. Independent polling commissioned by the RSPCA and conducted in May 2023 found that 71 per cent of Western Australians support the federal government's policy to phase out live sheep export by sea. This includes 72 per cent of people in metropolitan areas and 69 per cent in rural and regional Western Australia. As Australians, farmers and city dwellers alike, we pride ourselves on being a compassionate nation, one that treats animals with dignity and one that embraces world's best practice when it comes to farming and the slaughter of animals for food. Since at least 1985 we've known that live exports are inconsistent with our values. That's when the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare report found that live exports were 'inimical to good animal welfare'. Since then, there have been a plethora of media exposes, government reports, independent investigations and court cases about the trade. The fact is that the practice is inconsistent with animal welfare and with our values. According to the RSPCA's research published in 2023, over 60 per cent of independent observer reports on live sheep exports published between 2018 and 2023 revealed indications of heat stress. Starving and underfeeding was reported in over 80 per cent of cases of death and illness onboard, and 26 per cent of reports indicated issues with ventilation. Issues of noncompliance with the Australian standard for exporting livestock were recorded in approximately 70 per cent of journeys. But, as the RSPCA points out, many ships sail without an independent observer—about two-thirds, according to the RSPCA. Regulation has failed. In my view and the view of the RSPCA, that's because it is not possible to humanely transport thousands of sheep, packed together, halfway around the world through equatorial heat for three weeks and sometimes longer. So it has to stop, and that's why I'm supporting this bill to end the export of live sheep. I would prefer to see a quicker timetable than May 2028, but I understand why the minister has proposed this timeline. It is helpful that there are viable alternatives to live sheep exports, alternatives that will benefit Australian workers and Australian communities. There is no reason why livestock cannot be slaughtered here and transported in refrigerated ships. We have the technology, and we have the expertise to kill animals in a way that meets the requirements of Middle Eastern markets. Moving processing onshore would add jobs and ensure that abattoir activities are conducted in line with Australian animal welfare standards. The processed meat trade is already worth far more than live exports. WA's boxed and chilled sheepmeat export trade is worth $648 million. That is eight times more than the live sheep trade. It is projected to continue to grow in the short to medium term. I note that the minister has already announced a $107 million transitional support package. I would also encourage the minister to adopt the findings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which has recommended additional funds. The committee suggests that these be made available at the 2026 stocktake of progress. Lastly, this bill only deals with live sheep exports. Australia is still exporting over 700,000 live cattle each year, mainly from the Northern Territory to Indonesia. Again, there have been recorded incidents of appalling conditions in Indonesian abattoirs, which highlight the difficulties Australia faces in managing animal welfare once livestock leaves our shores. In my view, we should follow the lead of the United Kingdom and New Zealand and end the entire live export trade. I commend this bill to the House. 17:51 Mr JOYCE e5d New England On the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, I'd like to note the member for Mackellar—this is the issue: people who have no idea about the live sheep trade are making comments on it. I'd like to note that the member for Mackellar has to deal with those well-known sheep producing areas, such as Palm Beach, Scotland Island, Dee Why and Akuna Bay! It's so easy to be moralistic about something when you don't actually live in the industry and you know nothing about it, to be quite frank. The incidents that the member talked about are incidents from many years ago. Might I just note that some of them were inspired by payments by animal activists to put the animals under stress. They turned off the air conditioners and didn't de-foul the pens. Because they had graphic images, they got paid a lot of money. In fact, that person got themselves a very nice house. I think it's in Thailand. That was one of the people whose responsibility on the ship was actually to look after the sheep. The mortality rates of sheep on ships now are about equivalent to what they are in the paddock. It's a completely different industry. There were issues in the past, and they've been dealt with. You will not get rid of the live sheep trade, I hate to say to the member for McKellar. It's still going to continue on. It's going to continue on from Somalia, from Kenya, from Turkiye, from South Africa—and the way they work is this: whatever comes off, they get paid for it. They don't care about the animal welfare issues. So, by doing this, ipso facto, you are actually promoting a worse form of the trade. You are taking out of the market the best player, the model player, in the live sheep trade and replacing them with all the others. We also note that they talk about how you make more money out of processing sheep. But do you think the processors are going to be happy, mad or sad that one of their biggest competitors is now out of the market? They're going to be loving this because there's less competition, less people on the rails buying the sheep, which, of course, forces the prices down. Have I heard the Labor Party or anybody else say, 'That's alright; what we'll do is invest in abattoirs to deal with this issue.' No, they won't. What we will see is—and I'm very aware of this—that people will make a judgement to just keep shearing the sheep and hope that what they make out of the wool this year is more than what the sheep would cost. What that actually means is that they end up just dying on the paddock. They just keep shearing them until they die. That will be the prospect. Some people will go broke because their place is just not viable unless you have this. There are so many issues happening in the Middle East. I have been to the Middle East quite a number of times, and that is pertinent to the live sheep trade. For us to have relevance, there has to be something that we do that they want. And the live sheep trade was it. It gave us a mechanism to have a conversation with people in the Middle East, which now will be lost. We have to understand how they work culturally and not try and impose our culture on them. One of the reasons the live sheep trade happens is because of a lack of refrigeration in those areas; that's how you keep the meat from going off. But now, by reason of Australia being in it, they have brought in new abattoirs—new abattoirs for humane treatment when slaughtering sheep. That's because Australia was involved in the trade! That's why it happened. But now we're removing that. Now we're going to vacate that market. So it's a very scripted and constricted view of the holistic outcome of what happens to sheep. What those opposite are saying is that what happens to sheep in Australia justifies the more barbaric treatment of sheep somewhere else. And that's exactly what will happen. I also note that the member for Mackellar said exactly what we know—that this is just the start. This is the thin end of the wedge. She actually nominated the live cattle trade—they want to close it. Banning the trade was probably one of the worst decisions Australia has made in regard to its closest neighbour, as a supplier of protein to its people, especially the people of Jakarta for their bakso balls, a staple that they eat. She said it: it's on. So we're heading towards banning live cattle. We also heard the member for Bendigo giving a speech, I believe, on issues of land transport. This is where you can only transport them for so long and then they have to have a 24-hour spell. In a country the size of Western Europe, this will be devastating. The way we work is completely different to the way they do in Europe. It just won't work! And I declare that I produce and sell sheep, and also cattle. We've also had the activists in the same genre coming and saying they don't want rodeos anymore. Those are part of our culture; they're what we do. People from Palm Beach might not understand that, but you understand it if you're from Tamworth because that's part of who we are. And there are campdrafts and, for those who are lucky enough, polo. But, really, it's about campdrafts, rodeos and stock transport. In our area, people get so frustrated. The people I talk to don't get this place, and this is a great example of why they don't. Look at a contract musterer who is working hard; they say: 'Our job is to feed and clothe people. That is what we do. Because we do our job, we add to the global food stack. And because we add to the global food stack, people at the bottom of the stack, who would otherwise go without, get fed.' The people who feed off the top are having steaks, but it all falls down: there are too many people on the globe and not enough food. That's exactly what's happening now: the number of people who are malnourished and who are 'starving' is going up exponentially because this globe cannot produce enough food. Now, this is what you do if you want to make it worse. This thing abides by an anthropomorphic principle, where animals are people and people are animals. What happens if you follow that is that you just start treating people like animals. If you believe that and you want to go to a non-animal diet then a couple of things will happen. You will have to completely denude all the country at certain elevations with certain rainfall and certain soil types of all vegetation and then plant soybeans. And you will still have about three billion people too many in the world. I don't know what you do with them; they will die. People have to be sustained by protein, and there are some tricks to growing protein. What we've got—what nature made, what God made—is this very interesting thing. He made capacity in marginal areas where you can't grow soybeans and you can't grow chickpeas so that you can convert minor pasture and lesser pasture into units of protein. It's a really clever thing. And that goes onto the food stack and feeds people. That converter unit that converts minor pasture and lesser pasture into protein is called a' sheep'! It eats mulga and lesser vegetation, and converts them into protein. So you can actually get an outcome, an output—a moral good—in food, from lesser country. But what they're doing here is to say, 'No, that won't happen,' because this is the sort of country they come from—basically, older sheep; full-mouth whethers and full-mouth ewes. They're the ones who end up in the live sheep trade. We now see this great split, where regional Australia is run by Palm Beach, Scotland Island and Bellevue Hill. It's not run by the people who actually live there. This will filter through into other sections of the rural economy. It's no good saying, 'I believe in rural Australia,' and getting yourself a brand-new set of RMs—maybe not RMs, because that is Mr Forrest, and he's putting up the swindle farms—or a new Akubra, or maybe not because that's also Mr Forrest, and parading yourself around saying, 'I love youse all. Here we are at Rockhampton, rah, rah, rah. Come on, come and have a beer. I love to have a beer with Duncan,' and then go and shut down one of the cornerstone industries because you want to look after the people of Palm Beach, the people in the seat of Manly or people who really have nothing to do with the industry at all. I'll tell you about another group that has been thrown under the bus. There was a former premier of Western Australia who was very popular. I think his name was McGowan. Even though he was from Labor, he actually stood by the industry because he's a Western Australian, and it's very much a Western Australian issue. It's part of the iconography of Western Australia. One thing that Western Australians hate is eastern staters telling them what to do, and this is precisely that. It's eastern staters telling Western Australia what to do. The parochialism of Western Australia works in such a form that they sort of bind together very quickly when they see you picking on Western Australia. So we've got a bit of an issue here. The Prime Minister is not going so well. He's not going so well in the polling; let's be honest. He's kind of cooked. They're going to have to do something rather tricky at the next election to try and stay there. Part of that trick is that they've got to hold seats in Western Australia. This says to Western Australians, 'Don't vote for the Labor Party,' and that's precisely what they'll do. Maybe, in a perverse political sense, I should say, 'Thank you very much,' because you're going to help hand across seats to us from Western Australia. All you ministers can go back to that other part called 'the corridors of irrelevance', which is opposition. You'd be great! You've successfully made yourself the second one-term government in the history of Australia, because you've decided that it's better for you to look after teal seats and inner urban seats than to actually stay in government. I know you don't really care what we do in regional areas. You just don't like us. That's quite evident. You don't understand us. You have no respect for us. You push an unreasoned and unresearched moral view of an industry that you don't understand. You haven't been a part of it recently to understand exactly what we've done in the improvement of animal standards, where we lead the world. I remember when the live cattle trade started. I have to be honest, I was the first one to give a press conference as the shadow minister for water, and Tony Abbott lost his mind with me. He rang me up, said I was outrageous and asked whether I had watched Four Corners. I assured him and said, 'Tony, this is one of the worst decisions that has been made by a government, and time will prove me correct.' Without self-aggrandising—but I suppose I am—I was correct. People now clearly acknowledge that it was a disaster of a decision. The Indonesians looked at us and said: 'Our relationship with you relied on you feeding us and being a reliable source of protein. Jakarta's a big place. We get rather scared when we've got nothing to eat. We thought you were reliable, but you're unreliable. You've got this vacuous, mystical philosophy that says, "I can supply you with protein," and then all of a sudden you don't.' They'll also be watching what we're doing here with the Middle East and saying: 'They're at it again. Here go the Australians again.' They're on the path, and they'll be saying: 'We've got to start looking around. We've got to start finding somewhere else.' Much of the whole economy that underpins northern Australia is the live cattle trade, which is just another addendum to the live sheep trade—the live animal trade. This is remarkable, because these are the things that actually take Indigenous Australia, ahead. They are actually part of the industry. They can become very wealthy. They'll also be looking at it and saying, 'Well, there you go. The people of urban Australia, they love us and they want to buy our paintings. But when it comes to something we start making a buck out of, they start closing us down. They moralise about us. They only like us in a kind-of way, in a way that suits their rules, their morays and their terms.' There's another word for it; it's called 'patronising'. They're very patronising. The coalition have stated, as they should, that we'll reinstate the trade. Here's a clear statement to the people of Western Australia: if you vote for the Labor Party, they will take away one of your major trades because they don't respect you. They're eastern staters coming over to tell you how to live your life, because they think you're repugnant and immoral. If you vote for the coalition, if you vote for the Liberal Party or the National Party, we will reinstate your trade because we believe Western Australia has a right to have one of its major industries maintained. You'll get this choice as to whether you vote for people who don't respect Western Australia or do respect Western Australia, I would suggest, in the next six months, maybe earlier. And when you go to the ballot box, you can say, 'Am I going to have someone in Mackellar, in Palm Beach, in Scottish Island, in Bellevue Hill, at Manly, at Dee Why, telling me what to do in Western Australia? Or am I going to boot them out?' And I would boot them out. 18:06 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I had a history of Australia published, which I consider to be a very great honour. That was done. In writing that history of Australia, you can't write the history of Australia without writing the history of the Labor Party, of which my family were foundation members. They were very wealthy people who put a lot of money behind the Labor movement. We believed in it. We stuck to it. The Labor Party split in two in the 1950s. Unions were controlled by communist elements and the Labor Party split in two. Half the Labor Party ended up in a bit of a bushwhacker's turnout—I don't know if a lot of them could read or write too good—called the Country Party. The Labor Party was founded by shearers. I'll repeat that slowly. The Labor Party was founded by shearers. If there's a second element, they were the cane cutters. I'll talk about the Labor Party being founded by shearers. If ever there was a group of people that have betrayed their roots and their foundations, it is the Labor Party. In Queensland, we had 22,000 people employed in the railways in 1979. When the government went down in 1989, we had 20,000 people employed in the railways. In other words, there'd been a cutback of 2,000 people over 10 years. In five years under the Labor Party, the railways lost 12,000 jobs—12,000 sacked. One of the good unions out there decided they'd had enough of Jackie Trad. And here is a warning for you Labor politicians: you, as a party, think you can get away with it. You, as an individual, be careful, because Jackie Trad was no more. She sacked all those railway workers and thought she could walk away from the table. She thought she could shoot her mouth off against coalminers and walk away from the table. She thought she could sack 2,000 electricity workers and walk away from the table. It doesn't work like that. Julia Gillard thought she could get away with it. I hate to criticise Julia Gillard. I really liked her as a person and I still do, and I have great respect for Julia. But she thought she could stop the export of live cattle and she thought she could get away with it. Within three weeks, she was out on her head. Just remember, it is not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size of the fight in the dog. So this dog bit her and she was gone. I mean, how many messages do you need to get to have a little bit of political brains—not doing the right thing by the country, just political brains? The last speaker—the honourable once leader of the National Party—was quite right in pointing out that people will starve as a result of your decision. You just can't take that much food away and not have people die of starvation. You don't die of starvation; you have malnutrition and you're unable to fight off diseases. You die, really, as a result of malnutrition breaking down your ability to survive diseases. So people will die as a result of your decision. But you're not Christians. You don't believe in that sort of thing, like that you have a duty to other people in the world. You don't have those ideas. You have an ideology. I thought this was a beautiful phrase: 'This is reckless and criminally irresponsible ideology.' There's no rationale. There's no reason involved here. It's just reckless, criminally irresponsible ideology. We have a saying in the bush: 'When your neighbour starts preaching religion, reach for your branding iron.' Once people start talking about ideology or their beliefs, or say, 'We care about these poor animals'—no-one's going to believe that; I most certainly don't believe that. You people have never had an animal in your life. Most of you have never even had a dog, and yet you love animals. How can you love animals if you've never had one? I've seen cattlemen leave their dinner to go out at night because a cow was calving, and they will preserve that calf. You say, 'You're going to kill them in the end.' Yes, they're going to die in the end; that's the truth of the matter. If you continue on the pathway that you have carved out, the cattle industry will collapse. The mid-west, where I come from—which is almost all of inland North Queensland, about one-fifth of the surface area of Australia—is covered with troughs. Out of those water troughs comes birdlife. Out of those water troughs comes kangaroo life, and various other marsupials. When you take those troughs away, they will all die—over a million square kilometres, and they're all going to die. You don't know what you're doing. You don't care about animals. You don't care about human beings. History is a very, very angry person, and it tells people what you did. I always hold this up, and I say, 'What's that?' They say, 'It's a map of Australia.' I say, 'No, it's not, actually. It's a map of Australia, shorn of the east coast'—shorn of Victoria, but who'd miss Victoria, truly? So Victoria's gone. But it's substantially a map of Australia; 93 per cent of the surface area of Australia is in that map. It's occupied by less than a million people. How much longer do you think that is going to go on for? That golden Australia, where there's no-one living, produces all of our iron ore, aluminium, gas, gold, copper, silver, lead, zinc, uranium, oil and fertilisers. It produces almost all of Australia's coal and cattle and most of Australia's wool and wheat—what's left of the wool industry, anyway. And there's no-one living there. It's shown in gold because it's a goldmine. That area is literally a goldmine. For those that read history books, there is a very chilling aphorism that comes to us from Carl von Clausewitz, the greatest commentator on warfare in human history. In his landmark work On War, Carl von Clausewitz says, 'A people without land will look for a land without people.' Read Mein Kampf, and you'll see on every third page he uses the word 'lebensraum'—living room. 'We have a population, but we don't have the land. Russia has the land, but they don't have the population. We'll fix that up with a little war that'll cost the lives of 49 million people,' because the idiot politicians didn't understand the lessons of history. I will quote Winston Churchill: 'Those that do not understand the lessons of history will be doomed to suffer again those lessons.' He's dead right. We are in a land without people. I'm not going to go any further than that. You can look around for where there's people without land. To insult and offend those people—I talk here of people of the Islamic faith—to pick a fight with them and take away their food source? You want to get a picture of this. You're a tiny little European country of 26 million people, living in Asia—with two-thirds of the world's population—and you're going to tell them what to do. You're going to tell India that they can't have coal, are you? Who the hell do you think you are? As far as a sense of responsibility goes, we have to have an income. We want to buy everything from overseas. We've closed down all our own industries, so we have to buy everything from overseas. To buy something from overseas, you've got to sell something. It just so happens that we've only got three things that we sell now. That's coal, iron ore and gas. Well, you people gave the gas away, and I don't mean the ALP. I mean the Liberal Party and the Labor Party and the National Party. You gave the gas away. You sold it for 6c a unit. We have to buy our own gas back at $16.50, which means we can't produce fertilisers in this country. They have to be imported from overseas, as many other products have to be because we can't afford to buy our own gas. Everyone else on Earth has reserve resource policies, as does Western Australia, God bless them. We had a reserve resource policy in Queensland. But with the enlightenment in this place? No reserve resource policy. So the gas went for 6c a unit. You let all your gas go. To put that in perspective, Qatar, a tiny country, produces as much gas as Australia and exports as much gas as we do. Last time I looked, they were getting $29,000 million a year for their gas and we were getting $600 million for ours. Who's running this place? I'll tell you who's running this place. It's the people who sit on that front bench and the people who sit on that front bench. Who's responsible for that decision that cheated our country out of $29,000 million a year? Who's responsible for that? When you go to bed at night, you'd better start thinking about this because one day you will die and you'll have to go to meet your maker, and he will say: 'I gave you arguably the richest country on Earth. What did you do with it?' Let me return to the Labor Party. It was founded by the shearers. The shearers needed a wool industry. So Keating came in, and one of his first acts was to deregulate the wool industry. He might hate wool farmers, but he sure doesn't like the shearers, that's for certain. So 80 per cent of the product which has carried the Australian economy—and in 1990 was still carrying the Australian economy; we exported $6,000 million worth of wool that year. We now export $5,900 million of coal. Wool in 1990 was still bigger than coal. Now it's nothing. It's absolutely nothing. It's not in the top 25 export items. The thing that carried us for 200 years, the industry that created the labour movement—a very proud and great movement in this nation's history—was completely destroyed by those people sitting over there. That's who destroyed it, and they will go down in the history books as the people who destroyed it. I represented, in my state seat, 3½ million sheep. The president of the Wool Council of Australia came from Hughenden, the heartland of my home country, in the mid-west. We had 3½ million sheep. I doubt we would have 100,000 sheep now in that area, and the shearers have gone. If you argue that these animals are poorly treated in travelling on these ships—we had a lady in the electorate I represent who said, 'The disgraceful way that you torture cattle, carrying them in the back of cattle trucks, where there's dust and noise and wind—that's just absolutely deplorable.' I said, 'Lady, you just happen to be knocking on the wrong door,' because all of our rugby league teams travelled in the back of cattle trucks. I was one of the people who put up with that—with the dust and everything else. Where I come from, that's normal for human beings, let alone for animals. I just get back to that phrase, 'reckless and criminally irresponsible ideology'. When ideology starts running policy, big trouble follows. I would refer to the Nazi party, where ideology controlled Germany. We all know how that ended up. Ideology controlled Russia and China, and communism in those two countries cost 78 million lives under Stalin and Mao Zedong. Finally, I'd just like to say that it's a matter of values. Do you put no value at all upon human life? There are people that need that food to stay alive. To go hungry is something that we as Australians have never encountered. But in other countries it drives, to a large degree, their politics. For those, again, who study history—during the French Revolution, the people of Paris were starving and the queen made a very ugly reference, and that was all it needed to set the tinderbox alight. As I said, I have great respect for Julia Gillard—I like her very much—but she was no more. You carry this out—this stupid irresponsibility—don't worry about the size of the dog in the fight; worry about the size of the fight in the dog. 18:21 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Tonight I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 and an amendment that has been put to this bill by the Leader of the Nationals, Mr Littleproud. The first part of the amendment criticises the government for its reckless and ideological decisions to shut down the Australian live sheep export industry by sea. At the outset, the opposition will be opposing this. Listening to the debate in the parliament, it's interesting to hear the comments from members that are opposing this position, and those that are supporting it. In stark contrast, those that are supporting it, when you have a look at the geographical footprint of where they live, most of them don't have sheep. Their livelihood is not relying on sheep. In fact, the livelihoods of most of the people who are making a contribution in support of this bill do not rely on any type of livestock. I'm in a partnership. We've got 2,000 cattle—a breeders program in Queensland. I know firsthand the devastating impact that shutting down an export industry had on our industry. It's poignant to point out to those Australians that are listening to this debate that, in the current climate, they're talking about a mandatory code of conduct for large retailers. In the cattle industry, when you took away the prices that the retailers were offering the cattle industry—and let's use hypothetical numbers—if you were getting $2 a kilo at the saleyards and live cattle was giving you $3, it kept the pressure on the retailers to provide that value, because there was another market. But when you arbitrarily take away that third market, the export market—which often pays better than the local domestic market, otherwise you'd just sell into that—you take away that competitive tension, and that's the perfect storm for the large retailers. And it's a storm that domestic growers do not want to be in. Again, to put it into contrast, it was $3.60 a kilo for cattle heifers that were going to Indonesia, and no-one will ever forget the diabolical, devastating effects that the decision made by the then Labor government to shut down the live cattle export market overnight had on the cattle industry in Australia. It affected not just the cattle producers of Northern Australia. Immediately after those markets shut down, those cattle set to go overseas had to come back into our domestic market. There's not a lot of domestic cattle sold in the Northern Territory. They go out of Townsville. There are big selling yards in Rockhampton and Roma, which absorb a lot of Central Queensland's volumes. But, when you get down to my electorate, we have three small selling yards at Moreton, Silverdale and Beaudesert. When the live cattle export market collapsed, Brahman cows were selling for less than $1.20. It just collapsed overnight because of the old demand-and-supply principle of economics. It just shut it down. There are lessons to be learnt from the collapse of this market as we aimlessly walk into the same traps again. I've heard those on the other side espouse that boxed beef will be the saviour. Some have quoted 400 per cent; some have quoted 500 per cent. 'This will be a windfall for Australia.' I would just make the point that, if there is going to be a colossal, huge windfall for sheep producers in Western Australia—put aside the protests; I'll get to that later on—the government should guarantee it. I know there's a restructuring plan now around that. There's some money associated there. But the government should guarantee it with a cheque so that, if your business is worse off after this bill comes to fruition, the government will square up the difference. That's if the Australian Labor Party is so committed to destroying those amazing farmers of Western Australia and those families' lives, either intentionally or unintentionally. I don't think anyone in this place comes into this building with the intention of destroying lives, but often there are unintended consequences, and I am fearful that that is exactly what's going to happen to those people in Western Australia who have been protesting this bill. The second point in the amendment put by the Leader of the National Party is that Australia's live sheep export industry employs more than 3,000 people in Western Australia, including shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, farmers and producers. That is all very true. The amendment goes on to say that these workers now face the prospect of losing jobs, and families that are struggling under financial stress may now face a difficult decision to leave their rural towns and their communities. We saw that in the cattle industry when they shut down the live cattle export. To this day, there is still a contingent liability on the Australian government's balance sheets from a class action being taken by those families whose lives were crippled, by those truck drivers who had jobs tracked in, by those people who owned the saleyards who lost revenue, by those businesses who owned the ships, by stock agents and by the very people that this amendment seeks to look after. This industry has delivered comprehensive reforms which have secured exemplary animal welfare outcomes. I have listened to the speeches in this debate, and I want to acknowledge the member for Parkes. The member made an amazing contribution—when he spoke about mortality rates on ships leaving Western Australia, going off to potential markets—where he said that in Australia the mortality rates of sheep mean they're more likely to die in a paddock than they are on a ship that has 99.8 per cent survival rates. If you're listening to this debate for the first time, those on the other side would have you believe that video footage from television shows which have previously been the catalyst for this push—their argument is that these ships are just cesspools for our live sheep export. Australia is one of the leaders in animal welfare, sheep welfare, in this space. If we exit the market, the sheep from other countries that are going to fill that market void, countries who don't have the same welfare standards as us, are going to be treated with a greater degree of cruelty. How is it that those very people who are arguing for this bill will put their head on their pillows each night knowing that sheep are being treated with a greater degree of cruelty when travelling from other countries to these ports than what they would from here in Australia? Shame on you. Shame on you. Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world, and it's something that we should be proud of. The amendment also seeks to further criticise the government for its mismanagement of this policy to end live sheep exports and the lack of consultation with farmers, sheep producers and impacted communities. It acknowledges that this policy is widely and strongly opposed across the agricultural sector, and it's opposed by me as the federal member for Wright. It's a vibrant, sophisticated electorate. We have very few sheep in my electorate. The main contributor to GDP in my electorate is agriculture. I mentioned earlier that we have three selling yards, but the biggest contributor to GDP is horticulture, vegetables. Today I felt compelled to come in here and offer my voice, hopefully a reasonable voice, to this debate. I know that when the antagonists finish with the live sheep export market, they will turn their attention to the live cattle export market once again. It is in their DNA. It is how they are programmed. They will do it regardless of the contingent liability that sits on our balance sheets. They will do it because they are not motivated by animal welfare, as some would have you believe. Some say they might be motivated by Green preference votes, but who knows? The amendment also speaks to the concerns that, if the live sheep export industry is banned in Australia, alternatives will be sourced from other countries that don't share the same animal welfare standards, resulting in perverse international welfare outcomes. It calls on the government to immediately reverse its policy to shut down the industry. The reality is we, as a coalition, don't have the numbers in this parliament at the moment to stop this bill from going through the House, depending on the will—and we never want to pre-empt them—of the crossbenchers. Can I suggest that we, as a coalition, give an absolute ironclad commitment to the Western Australian farmers and the Western Australian sheep producers that, if re-elected—and the hardcore reality is that if we are going to be re-elected we're going to have to do it with seats we win in Western Australia—we will reinstate, within our first hundred days, the industry. Many years ago Australia was built on the back of our sheep industry. In closing, I acknowledge some amazing efforts of members from the opposition agricultural committee who travelled to Western Australia: the member for O'Connor; the member for Grey; the member for Durack; the member for Dawson; the member for Barker; the member for Nicholls; and the member for Forrest, who travelled and met with the seafarers, met with the farmers, learnt firsthand and listened to them about their pain and to their toils. They then brought the knowledge they had gained from those trips back to our party room and shared—some with tears in their eyes—the devastation that was about to affect, intentionally or unintentionally, these poor farmers in Western Australia. If I don't stand tonight to offer my support for this industry and for my Western Australian colleagues, I know the government will come after the cattle industry just as they have gone after the fishermen in North Queensland. It's a disgrace. Shame on them. 18:36 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Six years ago I supported a bill by the member for Farrer, and it had a similar aim to this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The member for Farrer's bill was introduced in May 2018 following the shocking 60 Minutes report that highlighted the atrocities experienced by some sheep on long-haul routes. The 60 Minutes report was deeply upsetting and caused many people to question the activities of live sheep exporters. The footage of sheep dying from heat stress and overcrowding on board the vessel Awassi Express, operated by Perth based company Emanuel Exports, was a turning point in the national discourse. I then introduced my own bill in 2019 and on subsequent occasions have taken the opportunity to call on the government to act. Finally, six years later, we now have a plan to exit the live sheep export trade. As a member of a regional electorate I understand the importance of the agriculture industry, and I also understand and respect the care taken by farmers and the supply chain in dealing with live animals. The response taken by the sector following the 2018 report resulted in a dramatic improvement in long-haul mortality rates; I think we need to acknowledge that—very much so. The industry, as far as sheep and ships go, has changed significantly since that 60 Minutes report. However, one thing that hasn't changed is the experience of some of those sheep once they arrive at their destination. It's at that point we lose all control of the animal welfare of our Australian sheep, and that deeply concerns me and many people in my community. Therefore, I feel this bill is the only appropriate measure we can take. There will be a transition in the industry, but I think it's fair to say much of this has already occurred. In 2011-12 the value of live exports was around $600 million. Ten years later this had fallen to $200 million. Much of this was displaced by sheepmeat export, which rose to more than 60 per cent of export value in the 2021-22 year. That's a good news story. We want to be processing more in Australia, value-adding in Australia, in many cases, whether they're cyrovaced or frozen and those carcasses are exported. The government has allocated $107 million over five years to support the transition through assistance to individuals, businesses and communities affected by the phase-out of live sheep. I've got to say that that is a very low amount. It is simply not going to be enough money if we are serious about making sure that those farmers, those communities, those truck drivers and those shearers are supported, and about building the capacity of processing in the region. So I urge the government to look at that figure of $107 million, to sit down with the relevant stakeholders in the community and to sharpen the pencil, because that is not going to be enough to transition. It simply won't be enough. We need significant investment in food manufacturing that adds value to the products. That means more jobs in Australia and well paying jobs in our community. We need that investment in our regions, close to where the agricultural production occurs. I will say it again: $107 million is a very small amount to invest in this sector, which is going to go through a very significant transition over the next five years. As I said, this bill does put a timeline in with respect to the export practice that has dominated discussions for several years, but it does not put an end to the livelihoods of sheep farmers. We need to make sure that it's a just transition, that they feel very well supported and that we see other avenues. We need to make sure we're not just saying, 'Let's explore new markets.' We need to do better than that. In closing, I do support the bill, but I think the government's transition package needs to be looked at very carefully and in partnership with those that will be affected, because we need to make sure that those rural and regional communities have the ability to thrive. 18:41 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker This bill sets a horrible precedent. Let me tell you and the people of Australia what that precedent is. We have before us an industry, the live sheep industry, which has done every single thing asked of it by government. I'll reflect on the 2018 Awassi Express saga shortly, but, assuming for a minute that that wasn't a contrived situation, from that point this industry has done every single thing asked of it by government. Yet this industry can be cancelled just like that. Lives, potentially, but definitely livelihoods lost. The industry should think deeply about that. What industry is next? If you can do everything that government and the regulators have asked of you and you can be put out of business at the stroke of a parliamentary pen, a prime ministerial directive, then think about your industry and your country. That's the precedent we're setting here tonight by this bill. It's not based on the science. It's not based on the data. It's based on blatant ideology. Some could argue that it is based on science—political science. It's not based on the science around animal welfare because, as I said, the industry has done every single thing asked of it. The industry was asked to initiate a moratorium on sheep exported during the Northern Hemisphere summer. It did that. The industry was asked to increase space and reduce stocking rates on ships. It's done that by up to 38 per cent since 2017. Improved ventilation on ships, with independent auditing—done. Automated environmental monitoring on decks to record deck temperatures—done. Independent government observers on decks—done. The industry has done every single thing asked of it, yet this government turns its back on these farmers and this industry. So let's talk about the Awassi Express. I wonder how many Australians know that Animals Australia paid the so-called whistleblower A$160,000 for the material he furnished to Animals Australia. I don't think many Australians know that. Lyn White at Animals Australia indicated in her affidavit that she did that because effectively this person was taking real risks to provide that evidence. She did that after having previously been provided evidence by a particular individual which wasn't quite up to scratch. She provided him with a new phone, a more modern phone, and indicated the kind of evidence that was sought and, lo and behold, on the Awassi Express, that evidence was collected—$160,000 does beg a question, doesn't it? I support whistleblowing legislation. I think we should have it. I think whistleblowers perform an important role in society. But I don't think it's cash for whistleblower contributions. It's worse; it's cash for evidence of cruelty. I don't think you should do that. It will forever lead me to question how that came about. Australian farmers care deeply about their livestock. I don't know an Australian farmer who doesn't. Indeed, Australian farmers expend tens of thousands of dollars, and in some cases many hundreds of thousands of dollars, on animal veterinary products. They do that because they want to ensure their animals remain healthy because a healthy animal is a profitable animal. So for me this is a really difficult pill to swallow on behalf of the farmers I represent. They care so deeply about their livestock and they take care of their livestock, and yet they're being accused, if you like, of animal cruelty simply because they participate in the live sheep trade. People might think that Australia's decision to no longer participate in the live sheep trade will end the live sheep trade globally. That's rubbish. Sheep will continue to be traded live globally. It's just that Australians—and in particular Australian farmers—won't be able to participate in that trade. They'll be blocked from accessing the trade. Now, people come in here who quite frankly don't know one end of a ewe from the other and say, 'Oh, well, we can process these animals in Australia.' It's very difficult in the Western Australian context to get a lamb up to specification in the way that you can in areas like mine. As a result, this product is simply not going to be viable; if you take out one part of a farming system, you affect it in its entirety. But I don't want the House to misunderstand and think that this is only a Western Australian problem. Once this position was announced, the price of sheepmeat in this country plummeted. In my electorate, it as good as halved. There aren't sheep exported from my electorate live. But, of course, the sheep that were slated to leave—with the industry already packing up and leaving—were processed domestically, and as a result the price for processing sheepmeat reduced significantly. This had a real impact, not just on sheep producers in Western Australia but on sheep producers all over the country. Those opposite might think they've pulled a particularly smart political trick. They might think that, well, they've made a cold, hard, calculated decision that they can achieve this outcome politically and it won't hurt them. Well, good on the farmers of Western Australia, who have stood up with the 'Keep the sheep' campaign. Sixty-one thousand people have signed that petition. Those opposite think, 'What's in a petition?' That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This industry has had enough. The animal activists have spent their time for too long on their business while farmers, who get up at the crack of dawn and work until well after dusk have been spending time on theirs. The point is that the farmers have now worked out that, while they were working on their business, the activists were working on theirs, and the activists' business was to put the farmer out of business. The farmers, via the Keep the Sheep campaign and, let's hope more broadly across Australia, via the 'let them farm' campaign to keep farmers farming, will fight back. They will do it in the smartest of ways. I travelled to Western Australia to support the sheepmeat industry with my good friends the members for O'Connor and Durack, whose constituents are at the pointy end of this particular decision. Do you know what each of those farmers at those events, no doubt including some of the 61,000 people who have signed the petition, said to me? 'Tony, we can name the six most marginal Western Australian seats. Actually, we can name the most marginal seats across the country.' I expect there'll be an army in these seats come election day. Those opposite might say, 'No, we're not gonna see that; good luck.' I come from South Australia. I saw the campaigns that were run by the state Labor Party. SA ambulances said, 'I can't save your life if I'm fighting for my job.' I saw the campaign. There were fake firies in other contexts, on polling booths, asking people to vote in support of the brave firefighters. Well, good luck in your campaigns, because the Western Australian farmers and farmers across the country will have tens of thousands of people rolling out on polling day with a single message: put Labor last. If I were in a marginal Labor seat, I'd be terrified at that prospect, and they should be. Three thousand Western Australians are employed directly by this industry, thousands of people indirectly. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this is an industry that has done absolutely everything asked of it. Whilst I'm on the subject, the Australian live sheep industry doesn't just export sheep. It exports animal welfare standards to the world. Why? Australia the only jurisdiction in the world, and I'll say it again—the only jurisdiction in the world—to take an interest in our stock, via the world-renowned ESCAS system, once our stock have left our borders. No other country in the world takes that interest. As I said, this won't end the live sheep trade around the world, as much as Prime Minister Albanese thinks he's a global thought leader. It just punishes Australian farmers. Globally, it also subjects animals to more cruelty. Why do I say that? I've had the pleasure of inspecting the facilities that are used by Australians to export live sheep. I've looked at the standards. I've also seen footage and images of other countries and how they go about the trade. I've got to tell you, it's chalk and cheese. As I said, no other country in the world has the ESCAS system. While Australia was participating in this trade, it was exporting those world-renowned standards to the world. Australia is no longer going to participate in the trade and, as a result, those standards won't be seen in this trade anymore. So the ability to influence other jurisdictions by the very enlightened Australian way of being is gone. I mentioned the real politics of this. I hasten to suggest that Premier Cook has a fair handle on sentiment in Western Australia—that he's someone who gets that this is a dog of a policy and that this is going to be bad for Western Australia and Western Australians. He said that it's unnecessary, and: We believe the welfare arrangements that are in place, the checks and balances that have been put in place as a result of the reforms around that are sufficient. That was Premier Cook of Western Australia. This is the thin edge of the wedge. If Australians think for one minute that those opposite, who have been corralled by inner-city voters and the keyboard warriors of this country into banning what is a lawful trade and, as I said, an industry that's done everything asked of it—where mortality rates are lower on the ships than in my own paddocks—do we really think that the activists are going to stop there? How long before the activists celebrate the victory and move to the cattle industry? How long? Not long, I suggest. This is a government that still hasn't finalised settlements from the Brett cattle case. So my message to rural industries is clear: watch out, you're next! 18:57 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney The export of live sheep by sea is an industry which has certainly faced its fair share of scrutiny and criticism over the years. As a result, it's true that this industry is currently one of the most highly-regulated trades in the country. It's also true that there are farmers, particularly in Western Australia, who breed stock to meet the demands of this export sector. I accept these markets exist for a variety of reasons, including slaughter, feeder and breeder, and that, in some instances, the reason that livestock is important is because refrigeration facilities in some of their destination markets are scarce. But the challenge lies in the ongoing operation of a trade that has lost its social licence, because, fairly or not, the images and stories told around it show that our continuing involvement in the trade is problematic from an animal welfare perspective. It is with a deep sense of responsibility then to multiple stakeholders and communities that I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. To be clear: among many other issues, including climate change, the housing crisis, integrity in politics and equality, my community cares deeply about animal welfare. While we do not have a live sheep export in my electorate, we have a substantial number of people who have become increasingly concerned about the way this industry has operated over time. These people aren't raving mad. Nor are they the inner-city latte-sipping woke set that some will claim. Many of them, like me, are people who grew up in regional or rural Australia but who now reside in an urban area. So they're not naive of the challenges that transitioning away from any industry brings. Rather, they're compassionate people who accept that those who live on the land are frequently the most committed to animal welfare. But they're also able to recognise a diminishing trade which is not only increasingly difficult to justify in terms of animal welfare but which also has limited long-term economic prospects. My community sees an upside here for animals and agribusinesses, and for those connected to them, in instituting a planned transition away from this trade. And they're prepared to use their voices and their votes to ensure that everyone comes out the better because of the transition. Ending live sheep exports by sea was an issue that was raised consistently with me from the very beginning of the community independent movement in my electorate of North Sydney. As a girl who grew up in regional Australia, it was not a trade I was naive to. I am an incredibly passionate advocate for our regional and rural communities and economies, so it is not lost on me that the commentary that pits city people against country people is something that could play out during this debate. With all of that said, having looked at the evidence available to this point in time and listening to the community in its broadest sense, I do stand to support this legislation because I believe we can pursue higher ethical standards when developing government policy. At the same time, though, my community has also called to ensure that those regional communities, particularly those in Western Australia, who have clearly articulated what they need to navigate the closure of this industry, must be supported. I want to acknowledge the organisations and communities that have actively participated in this robust debate around this policy reform, including the 44,000 Australians who signed one of the largest official e-petitions in the history of our parliament. Reform in this area is also supported by recent findings of an independent panel following a six-month inquiry which heard from over 2,000 individuals, undertook 96 stakeholder meetings and received more than 800 submissions and 3,300 survey responses. The panel did hear from a broad range of stakeholders, including producers, supply chain participants, export businesses, community groups, animal welfare organisations and trading partners. During the process, some argued that an end date of 1 May 2028 was too far away. But I believe it strikes the right balance in meeting the community's expectation, whilst also allowing for an orderly transition and the effective delivery of appropriate financial and other support for farmers, supply chain businesses, exporters, and trading partners. As the Australian Alliance for Animals has said, many accept this legislation is a fair, common-sense package that supports the industry to move forward towards a more humane and sustainable future. Ultimately, the truth is this industry has not only been in decline for some time but has also been on notice that this reform was coming. For this reason, while I honestly do feel for those who will now have to navigate this change—and I will fight to ensure they are adequately supported by this government—I also believe they've had ample notice. Inquiries into live sheep export welfare issues date back to 1985. Since then, at least 10 government and parliamentary reviews have examined the live sheep export trade and its associated animal welfare issues. While these reviews have led to significant regulatory reform of animal welfare standards to which exporters must adhere, reports of breaches continue to occur. Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum have made attempts to reform or phase out our live sheep exports over the years, including through private members' bills from Andrew Wilkie, Nick Xenophon and the Greens in 2011, through to now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Farrer, Ms Sussan Ley, who in 2018 tabled a private member's bill to not only ban live sheep exports to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer months in 2019 but to entirely close the sector down five years from the date of introduction of that bill. Ironically, that would have seen this sector close this year. Because notwithstanding the intended support of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock and the exporters' supply chain assurance system, repeatedly we have seen poor outcomes for sheep as they travel long, stressful journeys, often in suboptimal conditions aboard live export vessels. Since 2019, the only trading route used for live exports by sea is out of Western Australia to the Middle East, a journey that can take over three weeks. The most recent live sheep export crisis was just a few short months ago when the MV Bahijah left animals stranded on a vessel off the coast of Western Australia for over a month due to conflict in the Red Sea. Sadly, the case followed many other high-profile cases, including of course the incredibly stressful footage we all saw from aboard the Awassi in 2018, which saw the then coalition government adopting enforceable restrictions to trade during the hottest months of the Northern Hemisphere summer. While exceptional failures such as these make headlines, the live sheep export industry has been plagued by concern for decades. Indeed, a summary of the RSPCA Australia's analysis by independent observers paints a pretty stark picture. Data gathered by these observers from over 53 live sheep export journeys carrying 2½ million sheep between 2018 and 2023 found that, in over 80 per cent of voyages, sheep were starving onboard. In at least 60 per cent of cases, there were signs of animals suffering from heat stress. In addition, 14 of the 53 independent observers' reports also indicated issues with ventilation, including sheep being housed in unapproved areas of the ship, hot spots near engine rooms and the smell of ammonia building up in some pens. They were starving, stressed and suffocating. With extreme weather events happening increasingly frequently across Australia, it's true that you can at times also find starving and stressed animals on farms right across Australia. But when seen in these circumstances, people are able to reconcile themselves to the fact that this is a natural event beyond their control. The difference here is that, when we see these images of animals aboard a ship, we know that this is actually within our control. Therefore, it is little wonder that these images have resulted in the loss of social licence for this industry. Sadly, whether we like it or not, the general consumer impression is that, despite industry assurances to do better, the commitment is not able to be borne out. As RSPCA Australia points out, if these problems could be fixed, they would have been fixed by now. In a broader context, as the social licence has declined so, too, has the real market for live sheep exports by sea. It's due in large part to the prohibitive costs of international buyers in sourcing live sheep from Australia. From 2002 to 2023, the number of live sheep exported by sea decreased by a massive 90 per cent, from over 6½ million head to just 652,000 sheep. In 2022, Australia exported just 489,000 sheep, which represents just one per cent of the total value of Australia's sheepmeat and wool exports and around 0.1 per cent of the total value of Australia's agricultural exports. Given this decline, it actually does seem that now is the time to step into a phased, planned transition out of this sector. Some will argue that our absence from this market will simply open it up to others, and I do not disagree. Some will also argue that the whole issue here is perpetuated by sovereign overreach that sees us sell a product to someone else but then demand control over how they use that product once it's handed over. In this case, I can absolutely see the hypocrisy. After all, we happily ship our fossil fuels offshore, taking no responsibility for what happens to them once they hit their destination. How is it, then, that our obligations to track scope 3 emissions, which we know are having a direct impact on climate globally, are so easily sidestepped while our animal welfare issues are grinding this trade to a halt? I don't have the answer to that question, but I would suggest it has something to do with political expediency. Focusing on the transition—for it to proceed successfully, it is absolutely imperative that the plan and the support package offered by the government are not only appropriate but are delivered effectively to those affected by the phasing out of live sheep exports. In this context, I will take the opportunity to say that the government's record on supporting impacted businesses in this area is appalling. After all, our government still finds itself at loggerheads with those suppliers who were directly impacted by the 2011 decision to ban live exports to Indonesia. Those producers who joined forces to bring a class action against the government are still waiting for compensation, even though they won their case in the Federal Court. I say to the government, 'Settle that case now, or risk entering this next phase with little to no credibility.' In our current place and time, the businesses, communities and other entities that rely on this trade for economic sustenance must be able to trust that they will be supported as they navigate switching their land use to other purposes or as they try to capitalise on emerging opportunities in the domestic processing of sheepmeat for chilled or frozen export. Having grown up in a regional community, I know exactly how tough a transition like this can be and how vulnerable it can leave families if governments and new industry do not step into the gaps created. In my own lifetime, I have seen the impact of the demise of the regional rail network on many small regional communities near my home town of Coonabarabran. More recently, I've personally witnessed the impact of the loss of the forestry industry in the Pilliga not only on the economy but also on the overall health of the forest. Ultimately, transitions like this fail when they are forced upon communities, and the communities are just expected to cope. The affected communities must be put at the epicentre of the challenge, and people like me and others across my electorate must be prepared to listen to them, work with them and advocate for them to ensure that those navigating the coalface of this transition can thrive. I welcome the government's consideration of the concerns of farmers and businesses in the supply chain who will be negatively impacted by this legislation, and I commit to holding this government to account for making appropriate levels of funding available to support the industry transition. I note the government's plan to work directly with Austrade to build business and trade relationships in the Middle East and North Africa, and to fund a transition advocate to maintain two-way communication between industry and government throughout the transition period. In closing, I do want to ensure that it's understood that the reform we are discussing today relates specifically to the live sheep export industry, and it is not to be taken to be immediately applicable to other forms of agricultural export. I am aware of a deliberate campaign of misinformation launched by some in this place, painting me as someone who is set on closing all live export industries, and that claim is simply not true. Having grown up around farms, I understand the importance of food security and regional communities. I value the agricultural sector, and I will fight tooth and nail to ensure regional and rural communities are not left behind. No-one cares more for their stock than a farmer. No-one knows their animals better. No-one gives up more to make sure their animals are healthy, strong and productive. Therefore, where industries have shown themselves to be capable of managing the requirements of animal welfare, such as in the case of live cattle exports, I will back them and I will encourage my community to do the same. Many in my community will welcome this legislation today. But I want to reassure those who will be directly impacted by the cessation of this trade that we do see you, we will not forget you and we are committed to ensuring that our federal government works with you to ensure that you are stronger on the other side of this reform. 19:11 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Let's be very clear about what we're doing tonight. We are shutting down an industry. If those opposite, the teals and the Independents get their way, we are shutting down an industry, a $1 billion industry. And why are we doing it? We're doing it because of ideology—nothing else. It's ideology, pure ideology. There is no other reason why this is occurring. And all those who are going to vote in favour of shutting down a $1 billion industry should think again because, sadly, the message you're sending to regional and rural Australia is that you don't care. The message you're also sending is that they can have no confidence whatsoever that you won't do it to other regional and rural industries. There is no reason why we should be debating this bill at all. Time and time again, this industry—and let's remember how long it's been operating for. You can go back to the 1830s and 1840s and see that we were sending livestock from this country to other parts of the world. And every single time we did it we sought to improve how we went about doing it, to the extent that we built a $1 billion industry, which you are going to try and close down. I hope it won't occur, but, if it does, I want every farmer to know and everyone in regional and rural Australia to know this: the coalition is with you. If we're elected at the next election, we will overturn this ban and we will allow you to get the trade up and going again. Let's look at what's going to happen if it's successful. What is going to happen if it's successful? Do you think it's going to improve animal welfare outcomes when it comes to the live export of sheep globally? No. It's actually going to see those animal welfare outcomes deteriorate, because we set the gold standard when it comes to the live export of sheep. As a matter of fact, our gold standard means that the fatalities we see in live sheep exports are often less than those we see through natural causes out in the paddock. The dangerous precedent you're setting here means that people are going to say, 'Well, if they banned live sheep exports because of the small number of fatalities we've seen, what are they going to say when it comes to natural grazing or when it comes to feedlotting?' You'll start the campaign to try and close that off. And what will happen to our food security? Our food security will start to disappear. And look at the time you are doing this. Once again, it shows that you do not care about regional and rural Australia. It means you do not care for farmers, because you're doing it at a time when we are starting to see the impacts of drought in parts of western Victoria, in parts of south-eastern South Australia and in Western Australia. So, at a time when farmers are doing it really tough, what's the response of the government, the teals and the Independents? We're going to make life harder for you. What has happened to the price of sheep as a result of this government's action, which has been supported by the teals and the Independents? It's seen the price of sheep collapse. There might have been a slight recovery in the price, but it saw it collapse. This is at a time when, especially for young farmers, there are dry conditions, when they've got high interest rate payments and high fodder payments, when the cost of living and the cost of insurance are going through the roof. And what do you do? You bring in a bill that pulls the rug from under them by making sure the returns they're going to get on one of their key industries is taken away from them. Although this has been incredibly difficult and incredibly hard for Western Australia, and it's having a huge impact in Western Australia—and I acknowledge the presence here of my good friend Rick Wilson, who has, I think, fought more than any member in this place to make sure that this important industry for Western Australia continues—it's also had a huge flow-on effect in Queensland, in New South Wales and in my home state of Victoria, including in western Victoria where my electorate is. I cannot believe that those opposite will not look at the facts and the science when it comes to this issue, because the facts and the science show that we are continuing to improve the outcomes when it comes to this trade, to the extent that we have vets who go on ships and come back and vouch for those outcomes. Yet you will not listen to those veterinary scientists, and it's a shame on all of you. Let's turn to the compensation. As we know, this is a billion-dollar industry, which flows through to thousands upon thousands of jobs in regional and rural Australia. And what's the government come up with as compensation? A $100 million scheme. Heaven only knows how that is going to be divided up to deal with the loss of a $1 billion industry. That money flows into regional and rural Australia and helps small businesses. How are they going to get helped by this $100 million fund that is being set up? What they want is the continuation of the $1 billion industry, and that is what we want to see. As I've said before—and I speak for all coalition members—if we're elected, let us remember this: we will restore the trade. I commend Keep the Sheep, an organic, grassroots movement which has sprung up to defend the livelihood of people in regional and rural Australia. They now have more signatures on a petition to keep the live sheep export trade than there were on the petition that led to the teals, the Independents and the government wanting to close it down. As a matter of fact, I have just seen, from the member for O'Connor—and I might need to put my glasses on so I get it right!—that Keep the Sheep now have 61,000 signatures on their petition. I want to get this right. I think the petition which led to this industry being closed down had around 30,000? An honourable member: Forty-three. Mr TEHAN 210911 Forty-three. We've got nearly one-third—33 per cent—more signatures than the petition which led to this being closed down. That says it all. I must say that one of the really encouraging things about Keep the Sheep is that not only have they put their signatures in place; they've raised funds. They have raised funds. And they're going to campaign to make sure that those people who are shutting this $1 billion trade down will know that they're not happy about it, because it's shutting down a key industry in regional and rural Australia. So far they've raised $364,000 to run that campaign. That keeps going up, dollar for dollar, each day and each week. I know that Keep the Sheep are coming to Sheepvention Rural Expo in August. They'll set up a marquee, and be out promoting the live export trade there. I'd encourage everyone who believes in regional and rural Australia to make sure they sign the petition for Keep the Sheep, and make sure that they donate so they can send a message loud and clear to the Labor government, to the teals and to the Independents that we want to keep this $1 billion industry. Let's go back to why we want to keep it. In the last decade, considerable steps have been made, and continue to be made, to make sure that we improve animal welfare outcomes. Rather than shut the industry down, the position the coalition has taken is to work with that industry to make sure that it continues to improve its animal welfare outcomes. Let's be constructive in what we do, rather than be destructive and shut something down completely. Let's understand the importance of food security—food security not only here in Australia but food security around the rest of the world. Other countries depend on this trade for their food security—in particular, Kuwait and some of the other Gulf states. But what's the message we're sending to them? 'We don't care about your food security.' And, sadly, we're sending a message to our farmers that it seems like this government, the teals and the Independents are quite happy to start slicing food security here in Australia bit, by bit, by bit. All of us who were here when the Labor Party, with the support of the Independents, shut down the live cattle trade, have seen the dire consequences that occur. We would have thought they'd have learnt from that calamity but, sadly, here we are again; we're about to put a similar burden down—this time not onto live cattle but onto live sheep. We know that, sadly, live cattle are likely to be next. Heaven help us what will happen after that! We know that campaigns are beginning for the transport of cattle and sheep here in Australia. Heaven only knows what will be next. It's always a slippery slope with these groups—particularly when we get those vested interests who have no interest in what occurs in regional and rural Australia. Let's be honest about this—let's be frank: where is the push coming from? Where is the majority of the push to shut this trade down coming from? It's coming from the inner-city parts of our country. That's the sad reality. One of the things we need to continue to do is to make sure that the gap between our inner cities and what happens in regional and rural Australia doesn't continue to grow and grow. If people do not understand an issue and if people do not educate themselves on an issue—if people don't look at the facts of an issue—then we tend to get outcomes like this. And it's a sad, sad outcome for regional and rural Australia. I say to those opposite: it's not too late. You can think again about what you're doing here. You can think again about the message you're sending to regional and rural Australia. You can think about the petition which now has over 60,000 signatures on it. You can think of the fund which, organically, has raised well over $300,000. You can think about those farmers who have been here to this parliament and said, 'Please, do not do this.' I'm going to finish on this, because I think it was the worst thing I've seen through this whole sad, sorry issue, and I think it showed that he knows it. The ag minister's trip to Western Australia has to be one of the most shameful things that anyone's seen from a senior cabinet minister in this country. He flew to Western Australia so he could be seen to be being brave in making this decision. He went to Perth, didn't go out to a farm, didn't meet with the farmer groups, made the decision and jumped on a plane. He couldn't get back to the eastern seaboard quick enough. What a sad indictment. To have courage of conviction would have been to go out, meet with farmers, look them in the eyes and tell them what you're going to do to them. Instead, there was this four-hour trip to Perth and back without even doing the proper consultation. I commend the National Farmers Federation and all the farming federation groups right across Australia for standing up for this industry and standing up for the livelihoods of farmers across the nation. I commend my Western Australian colleagues, two of whom are in this chamber tonight, for the fight that they have put up to save this industry. I stand with you, I'm sure the farmers in my electorate stand with you, and we will restore this $1 billion trade if we are elected at the next election. 19:26 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I will be opposing the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 as I don't believe this ban is in the interests of Australia's farmers or in our national interest. One of the key reasons given for this ban is animal welfare, but it ignores the huge improvements and reforms that the industry has made. These improvements have been transformational. As Charlie Thomas from the National Farmers Federation told the House Standing Committee on Agriculture's inquiry into this bill: In 2017 the incident involving the Awassi Express shocked and disgusted farmers as much as it did the general public. That's why we demanded and embraced sweeping reforms. Those reforms, from changes to stocking densities, onboard reporting and care, the northern summer moratorium and much more, have ensured that in the last seven years we've seen a shift to gold standard animal welfare outcomes on board Australian vessels. The data on mortality rates prove this … an Australian-regulated live export vessel is just about the safest place a sheep can be. That's a very strong submission from Mr Thomas from the National Farmers Federation—very strong evidence and compelling evidence. The result of this ban will be that other countries which have very few or no animal welfare standards will step in and fill the market share that Australia will vacate. The National Farmers Federation CEO, Tony Mahar, put it this way: This doesn't end the global demand for live sheep. Today's announcement just sentences foreign sheep to the practices we banned a decade ago … He also says this about the ban: This is not just a betrayal of Australian farmers. It runs directly counter to our national interests. We're turning our back on crucial Middle Eastern partners who have plead for this trade to continue. "It also shows complete ignorance to the real-world implications of a ban, which will inevitably lead to poorer animal welfare outcomes. And it will. As Mr Thomas and Mr Mahar have pointed out, the reforms and changes to animal welfare have been transformational. Now, that trade will be ceded to other countries who have very few or no such standards, which will lead to worse outcomes for animals around the globe. This ban will also have a devastating effect on regional communities: WoolProducers Australia CEO Jo Hall said she wanted the people sitting in Canberra to think about the respected and hardworking men and women in the sheep industry who underpin regional Australian economies for decades. "And then I want them to tell us what they're going to do to replace jobs, put food on tables, and keep schools open—and that's just for a start. "They're offering a ludicrous compensation package which will barely touch the edges of what will be needed to support families and their businesses— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 It being 7.30 pm the debate is interrupted. The member will have leave to continue when the debate is resumed. ADJOURNMENT 70 ADJOURNMENT Gas Industry 70 19:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today to express the concerns of my community of Mackellar and of the broader Australian public about the function, or malfunction, I should say, of the gas industry in this country. We are the second-largest exporter of gas in the world yet we frequently hear that we are on the brink of a gas shortage in this country. Firstly, I would like to state clearly that, in 2024, we know we must transition away from the production and burning of fossil fuels if we want a safe and secure future for our children and grandchildren, so, while in the short term we need to continue using gas to ensure our energy security as our energy system transitions, the way the gas industry currently operates in Australia is nonsensical and not in Australia's best interests. Australia produces more than six times the amount of gas we need to supply our manufacturing industry, our power stations, our homes and our businesses, but more than 80 per cent of it either heads overseas as LNG exports or is used to convert natural gas into liquified natural gas, LNG. Additionally, the gas industry pays less tax per unit produced now than at any other time in the past 35 years. In fact, young people pay more each year in HECS and HELP debts than gas companies pay through the petroleum resources rent tax. Compare this with other places around the world. Qatar is a country that exports a similar amount of gas to Australia yet it collects 20 times the amount in revenue from its gas industry as Australia does. Norway has been taxing the export of profits of its oil and gas industry at 78 per cent since 1996 and, no, it hasn't impacted investments there. With this revenue, the Norwegian government has built a public sovereign wealth fund, which is now worth over $2 trillion. The pitiful rate of our own petroleum resource rent tax means that we are missing out on vast amounts of revenue that could be used to pay for our hospitals, our health and our education. So where does our gas go? Japan is the country most heavily reliant on our gas exports; 43 per cent of their gas comes from Australia. When our federal parliament passed the Safeguard Mechanism last year, which is our nation's only policy to address industry emissions in line with our Paris Agreement commitment, the Japanese government and the Japanese fossil fuel giant INPEX said alarming things would happen if this impacted Australia's future export of gas. The Japanese Ambassador to Australia said in a speech to this parliament in March last year: It's hard to imagine the neon lights of Tokyo ever going out, but … this is exactly what would happen if Australia stopped producing energy resources. Similarly, the chief executive of INPEX, Japan's largest oil and gas company, said last year, 'Australia's quiet quitting of the LNG business has potentially very sinister consequences for peace, stability and prosperity of the region, if not the world.' Such hyperbole has not withstood the test of time or scrutiny. Japan's LNG consumption has dropped by 25 per cent in the last decade and is expected to fall by another 25 per cent by 2030. Analysis from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, released in May, shows that for the past three years not only has the LNG supply far exceeded domestic consumption in Japan but Japan has been exporting more LNG than it actually imports from Australia. Further, two major Japanese utilities sell LNG to Singapore, a country that currently receives nearly 30 per cent of its LNG from Australia. This begs the question of whether Australian gas could be competing with itself via Japan. Also problematic for Australian households and businesses is that gas companies in Australia can set domestic gas prices higher than the international market prices. Lastly, because we export the vast majority of our gas it is now being suggested we may actually need to start importing gas to supply the Australian market. The big question is: if we had to start importing gas, would we be buying it back from Japan? Western Sydney: Infrastructure 71 19:35 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I've been a lifelong resident of Western Sydney. I grew up there, went to the local public schools and represented my community on the Liverpool City Council as a councillor, and am now am very proud to represent south-west Sydney in this House. I am proud to be from south-west Sydney. Its transformation and growth over the years has been extraordinary, and so many extraordinary people come from there. It's become the shining beacon of multiculturalism in Australia, showing the entire world the success Australia has with multiculturalism. Thousands of people have migrated from across the world to Western Sydney, helping to define our communities and contributing to the betterment of Australia. South-west Sydney is now the third-largest economy in Australia and growing. It's become the fastest-growing region in Australia, home to 2.65 million people—with that number growing to 3.2 million people by 2036. We are booming and have been booming for decades, but, unfortunately, that was unrecognised by successive state and federal coalition governments. State coalition governments have consistently focused on the eastern half of Sydney, with little regard for those in the west. That contrast was most pronounced during the state's response to the COVID pandemic, but it is something which has been the attitude for decades. Western Sydney has not received its fair share of social, health, infrastructure and education investment, and the consequences are being felt now more than ever. At a federal level Western Sydney barely registered in the minds of successive federal coalition governments. Many projects were announced, but, characteristic of the previous government, they were press release projects with little substance. It would have been better if there had been investment in our communities consistently over time, but as that didn't happen governments now have to play catch-up. With the election of the Albanese government in 2022 south-west Sydney is finally receiving the proper investment it deserves. In the October 2022 budget the Albanese government allocated $6 million to the Liverpool City Council to deliver on the election commitment to connect Middleton Drive and Aviation Road. Those familiar with the suburbs of Austral and Middleton Grange know how difficult and stressful it can be to travel in and out of those suburbs during peak times. This connection will be a game changer for many in my community, and it's now time for the Liverpool City Council to deliver on this project. The funding is there, yet, unfortunately, the Liverpool City Council seems to be dragging its feet. The October 2022 budget also delivered $300 million for the Western Sydney road package, $5.25 billion for the Sydney Metro to the Western Sydney airport and $1.6 billion for the M12 motorway. But our investment in south-west Sydney doesn't end there because our region needs significant investment over a sustained period of time. Last year the Albanese government announced an independent review of Australia's $120 billion infrastructure pipeline to ensure integrity and that projects were fit for purpose and could be delivered. As a result of that review the Albanese government can better invest in the projects that can actually be delivered, which has led to the recent announcement of the $1.9 billion investment in infrastructure for Western Sydney. This investment will deliver much-needed upgrades to traffic clogged roads and support our extraordinary growth. I commend the New South Wales Labor government for their recent investments in Western Sydney. After more than a decade of coalition state governments, New South Wales finally has a state government that acknowledges the growth in and pressures on our part of the world. The most recent state budget delivers billions for Western Sydney roads, transport, housing, schools and hospitals. As I drive around my community, for the first time in more than a decade I see investment that our community deserves. Roads are being upgraded with funding from state and federal governments, and there are upgrades to our schools and hospitals. There are even new schools being built. This was not a common sight in our communities. Whilst there's still a long way to go to make up for those decades of underfunding, south-west Sydney and the electorate of Werriwa finally have state and federal governments who are committed to working together and supporting our community and our people in our part of the world. Moore Electorate: Infrastructure 72 19:39 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Over the next 20 years, strong housing demand will drive a construction boom in Perth's northern metropolitan coastal corridor, extending north to Yanchep, projected to bring in over 10,000 new residents annually each and every year. By 2046, it is forecasted that 210,000 additional residents will move into our region, placing demands on services including health care, aged care, schools and sporting facilities. I'm committed to working cooperatively with the City of Joondalup and the state government to ensure that all levels of government are working together to plan ahead and implement strategies to meet this projected demand. My focus is on achieving forward-thinking development to support our growing community and enhance our quality of life. I'm working to promote the exciting next phase of the development of Joondalup City Centre, known for its innovation in technology, education and health industries. My priorities include promoting high-quality sustainable, commercial and residential developments, developing a vibrant cultural and entertainment precinct by progressing the Joondalup performing arts convention and exhibition centre and advancing the Joondalup innovation precinct to create highly skilled jobs. I have seen the Joondalup city skyline evolve over the past three decades, and the site of tower cranes in the Joondalup skyline is a most welcome sign of a thriving construction industry backed by private sector investment, economic development and local employment in our regional city. Joondalup City Centre is home to a number of development-ready vacant sites which, when developed, will bring much-needed amenity and vibrancy to our central business district. Currently, many businesses in central Joondalup are struggling from a lack of trade and pedestrian traffic due to low population density and sprawling urban development. We must think creatively and plan to get our city moving. Our economic recovery begins locally. Among the many opportunities for development within Joondalup City Centre are several vacant undeveloped lots, some with planning approval, ready to be developed, which offer opportunities for high-quality, environmentally sustainable development of high-rise commercial office space and medium- to high-density residential buildings. For instance, the City of Joondalup is seeking to develop Boas Place, located next to the civic centre in the heart of Joondalup City. The proposed Boas Place development will connect the city's existing civic, cultural, retail, transport, recreation and education elements, transforming these assets into a new precinct containing a vibrant mix of commercial, retail, residential and public spaces and acting as a catalyst to transform Joondalup City Centre. The aim is to activate our city into a livable and vibrant place with amenity. To the north of Joondalup CBD is a significant nine-hectare super lot, at Lot 9000 Mclarty Avenue, which is due for development. It is critical that this site is developed according to the best urban planning principles, as it will influence the vibrancy and livability of the northern part of our city for decades to come. To accelerate the development of Joondalup City North and future growth of the medical precinct surrounding Joondalup hospital, infrastructure funding is urgently needed to upgrade the road network around Shenton Avenue, Moore Drive, Lakeside Drive and Joondalup Drive to accommodate the increase in traffic. I strongly make the case in support of the City of Joondalup's submission for increased federal funding towards providing essential infrastructure to facilitate the growth of Joondalup City North. Next week, as part of Local Government Week, I look forward to welcoming a delegation from the City of Joondalup to Canberra, led by Mayor Albert Jacob and the chief executive officer, James Pearson, to build a business case for federal funding. I call upon the minister for infrastructure to favourably consider the City of Joondalup's submissions for federal funding ahead of the upcoming election budget. Paterson Electorate: Renewable Energy 72 19:45 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Although in some ways COVID-19 feels as though it was a lifetime ago, we did learn really important lessons from it. I think we were reminded of those halcyon manufacturing days in Australia where, quite frankly, we did make a lot here. That's why the Albanese government is focusing on a future made in Australia. We want to harness the competitive and natural advantages that we have. Our national economy does need to forge a path to become a renewable energy superpower. Tonight I'm sitting beside my wonderful colleague the fabulous member for Hunter for the adjournment debate. I know he agrees with me that coal and gas serve us well in our current energy mix. We know we will have a lot of hardworking people from our electorates who continue to mine that coal and work so hard. I want to pay tribute to those people, because they do an incredible job. But we also know that we need to move towards a renewable future, and that's why I was pleased to have the Minister for Climate Change and Energy come to Newcastle last week to make an announcement about offshore wind in my electorate and also in the seat of Newcastle. I know that there were great concerns in Port Stephens over offshore wind, but I want to thank my community for consulting and working with me on this. I know that we've got a way to go, but I also know that we're going to have jobs—that we're going to continue to have the prosperity in the Hunter that we've had for decades. That was because of energy—whether it came from coal, whether it comes from renewable sources like wind and solar, or whether it comes from the emerging and nascent hydrogen industry that's coming. It's so interesting: we can never get it wrong when we rely on the Australian people. We talk about investment in renewables in Australia, but the largest investment per person that we've had in renewables in Australia is the people of Australia putting solar on their rooftops. Apart from some of the really big developments that we've had just in very recent years, the biggest investment we've had in energy is rooftop solar. People in Australia get it; they know it makes sense and they know it makes their bills smaller. We can always rely on the Australian people making good choices when it comes to energy. They know how to bring their bills down and they have a government that wants to support them in that. From 1 January we'll be supporting them by giving them $300 off their energy bills. I think that's just so important. I want to compare and contrast that to the other offering that we have. In the Hunter we've got coal, we've got a wonderful renewables industry being built and we've also got hydrogen coming. But the other alternative is nuclear. Seriously, I just can't get over this. Most of the people I've spoken to up to this point are quite flummoxed by this. They say, 'Well, Mel, I understand what you're telling me but I don't believe it will ever happen.' The first thing is that it's going to cost billions and billions of dollars. The second thing is that if we wanted to do it we should have been thinking about it seriously 50 years ago—quite frankly, there won't be a megawatt generated from this shy of the next 20 or 30 years, so the run has been left too late. The main point I want to make about this is that if this was such a genius idea why didn't they do it 10 years ago when they were in government? They had 10 years to get this going and there was nothing—crickets. In fact, people said: 'You know, renewables are good. That's the future.' The member for Fisher said that in 2022; he's on the record as saying that. He said that about offshore wind—he said that it was the future and that we should be harnessing it. Flipside today: we're all in on nuclear. I want to say to the people of Paterson, and of the Hunter more broadly, that you have a government that believes wholeheartedly in what you do. We believe in a future made in Australia. We know that we can have clean, cheap, renewable energy. We know that we can bring your bills down. We know that we're not going to slug you with a reactor and then put your bills up on top of that. Under nuclear you will pay double, triple and quadruple and you will pay twice. It's a no to nuclear. Lucas Heights 73 19:50 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes In politics one receives plenty of free advice, largely unsolicited. I was very glad that I was here in the chamber tonight to hear my friend the member for Paterson say: 'Nuclear should have started in this country 50 years ago.' Well, I say to the member for Paterson, who is still in this chamber: nuclear started in this country 66 years ago, in 1958, and it started in my electorate of Hughes in Lucas Heights. Today in question time, the Prime Minister attempted to give me some free advice whilst at the same time largely not answering my question. My question to the Prime Minister was about the storage of waste at the existing Lucas Heights nuclear medicine and research facility, which is in my electorate. The reason for this question was because the Prime Minister does not appear to understand nuclear medicine. The nuclear technology and innovation at Lucas Heights, located within my electorate, is in the Prime Minister's home state and a mere 27 kilometres from his Grayndler electorate office. I would invite the Prime Minister to come out and look at the facilities at Lucas Heights. My question today related to something which I am very proud of in my electorate: the fact that Australia has a viable nuclear industry consisting of many extraordinarily brilliant scientists, researchers and technicians, and that industry exists at Lucas Heights in my electorate. The Prime Minister's response today was to point out, 'Lucas Heights is not a suburb'. It is, Prime Minister. Look it up on Google. It is a suburb. He said that nobody lives there and that I should direct mail Lucas Heights in the election campaign that is coming up. Well, Lucas Heights is one of the outstanding suburbs and locations within my electorate, and there are quite a few things at Lucas Heights. Lucas Heights Community School, for example, which I visited on 10 November last year, and which I have spoken about in this place before. I visited there with the honourable member for Macarthur, a member of the Prime Minister's own government, when that school launched its First Nations wellbeing hub. The Prime Minister unfortunately was absent from school that day. Also at Lucas Heights we have a childcare centre, which provides childcare services to hundreds of children, assisting parents in my electorate and the surrounding suburbs, supporting the work of the workers at Lucas Heights, workers for whom the Prime Minister today in question time appeared to have no regard. So the Prime Minister gave me some free advice around election campaigning today—to direct mail. I can assure the Prime Minister, as we are coming into this election, that I will be taking that advice. I will continue to be campaigning the way that I have done since I entered this place, which is through going out and listening to the people, and visiting important facilities within my electorate, including the facility at Lucas Heights and including the many people in the surrounding suburbs of Lucas Heights—suburbs such as Barden Ridge, Engadine, Bangor and Heathcote. I will be continuing to talk to all of those people, and many of them proudly work at Lucas Heights. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister today appeared to be so dismissive of them, so condescending. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister was unable to acknowledge the important work being carried out on nuclear medicine and research at Lucas Heights. For the benefit of the Prime Minister and for those on the other side, nuclear medicine is the process that introduces radiation or radioactivity to the human body to diagnose and treat a variety of diseases and conditions. Each week between 10,000 and 12,000 radioisotopes are produced that allow detection of life altering conditions. I will mention just a few of those treatments: diagnostic radiology, X-rays—for the Prime Minister—scans that involve radioactive substances, CT scans and radiotherapy—treatments commonly used in cancers. Let's look at the fact that 77,000 people received radiotherapy treatments each year. In 2023, more than 22,000 Australian women received this treatment for breast cancer, with over 4,000 for ovarian cancer and 2,000 for cervical cancer. I invite the Prime Minister to educate himself about the benefits of nuclear medicine in this country. Coalmining Industry 74 19:55 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter During the election campaign, I would walk around the streets in the Hunter and hear the same stories of mineworkers being ripped off, as I'm sure my good mate, the member for Paterson, hears as well in her electorate. She has a lot of coalminers that work in her electorate as well. Before I even thought about politics, I worked in the pits. I still have lots of mates that are still working in the mining industry, and I saw workers being ripped off right in front of me with my own two eyes. When I was working at Mount Thorley Warkworth, I worked with Gary, Benny, Yatsey and Adam. Three of us were full-time workers with Rio Tinto and two were casual workers on labour hire, getting paid $30,000 less than the three of us in the car crew. We were doing the same job and not getting paid the same. We were working exactly the same hours and exactly the same rosters. The difference was that they got no holiday pay, they got no sick pay and they got sent home when it rained. They couldn't call up a safety issue because they had a carrot dangled in front of them the whole time, telling them they'd get a permanent job one day. But that day never came for many of them. Their pay rise never came. They never got the same rights as others. This is an issue that's personal to me and it's personal to all of us in the Hunter and in Paterson. I made a promise that I would fight for these workers to get the pay and the fair go at work that they deserve. I promised that I would not stop fighting until they got the same pay as the people doing the same job right next to them—same job, same pay. It's what's right and it's what's fair. I couldn't be happier than to stand here today and say that the workers at the Mount Pleasant mine will no longer have to settle for less than what they deserve. Programmed labour hire mineworkers at the Mount Pleasant mine are getting pay rises of $25,000 a year, with the mine operator offering them permanent shirts. This is the first application for same job, same pay lodged in New South Wales by the mighty Mining and Energy Union. And what a win this was. This is a win for the workers affected. This is a win for the whole community. This is a win for workers rights in general all over Australia. I visited the site and spoke to the workers. I saw what this means for them and how this will change their lives for the better. One worker said: 'I've been working here for years and rarely taken a day off sick. Because I was labour hire, I didn't have sick leave and I already didn't earn as much as some of the other permanent mates. So calling in sick has never been an option for me.' While the pay rise is great, these changes mean so much more for these workers. This means that they will not only receive the same pay as their workmates but get the same conditions and job security as well. They'll be able to go home at the end of a hard day's work and better support their family, and they'll also be able to have the peace of mind that their job is secure. They will finally have access to things like sick leave and annual leave—things they haven't had for a long time. No longer will anyone at this mine have to work when they're sick, just to make ends meet, because same job, same pay is here and it's making a world of difference already. Miners work hard. They do long hours, big weeks and shifts at all times of the day and night. For someone to get paid less than their mates next to them for doing the same job is just an absolute insult and an absolute disgrace, and it's just not Australian. It is a wrong that we needed to put right. That's why we introduced the legislation, and now, after too many workers were being rorted for far too long, we are starting to see this wrong put right. I say thank you to Thiess, who operate the Mount Pleasant mine, for doing the right thing by their employees. It's just a shame they refused entry to see these workers to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and myself. I also want to thank the mighty Mining and Energy Union for standing up for mineworkers in the Hunter and all over Australia. People in this industry rely on you, and this win shows just how much of a difference you make to the lives of your members. I'd just like to say to the people of the Hunter, of Paterson and of all other coal regions of Australia that, whilst we want to buy our coal, we will always supply them our coal. We're a government that cares about coal workers, that cares about the mining industry and that will always support the mining industry. When you hear those on the other side and those over there in the Independent area as well telling you that Labor doesn't support coalmining, that is a deadset lie. We support coalminers, we support coalminers' families and we support coal. Thank you very much for the hard work you all do, and thank you to for the mighty Mining and Energy Union. Cheers. The SPEAKER 53517 I remind the member for Hunter not to use the word 'lie'. I'll ask him to withdraw that. Mr REPACHOLI 298840 I withdraw that. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 75 NOTICES Presentation 75

Tuesday, 25 June 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Calare Electorate: Veterans 78 16:00 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The men and women who serve Australia in uniform put themselves in harm's way for our country. Our ADF personnel and veterans give Australia their best, so it's vital that in return our communities and nation give them our best. Ex-service organisations like Molong RSL sub-Branch go above and beyond to deliver the highest quality advocacy, services and support to both local veterans and those from around Australia. Veteran wellbeing support officer and sub-branch member Marc Matthews is a leader in providing wellbeing support officer training across New South Wales, assisting in conducting training at more than 30 sub-branches. As a result of these efforts, over 125 new wellbeing support officers are now supporting the New South Wales veteran community. Marc aims to have over 300 wellbeing support officers trained in New South Wales. The Molong RSL sub-Branch has also established the first purpose-designed shopfront in New South Wales to support veterans in western New South Wales through wellbeing and compensation services. Molong's Veterans Advocacy Services is staffed by Marc Matthews, Thomas Squires, Commander Joanna Stewart RAN, Major Scott Fuller (Ret'd) and Warrant Officer Class 1 Sean Graham (Ret'd). On top of these outstanding achievements for the veteran community, the Molong sub-branch partnered with Molong RSL Club to design and construct an extraordinary memorial silhouette garden commemorating the service of all service personnel—Navy, Army and Air Force—that have served our country since Vietnam. The memorial features iron silhouettes depicting Royal Australian Navy Leading Seaman Kane Bird, Australian Army Warrant Officer Tom Squires, Royal Australian Air Force Warrant Officer David Betts and military service dog Sarbi. I had the honour of viewing it on ANZAC Day. Well done to Marc Matthews and the Molong RSL committee—president Mary Mulhall, vice-president Lyn Maxwell, treasurer John Hale, board member Marc Matthews and administration officer Tanya Johnston—for their involvement in this valuable and much-needed project. Another ex-service organisation in Calare that provides outstanding support to ex-service personnel is the Mudgee & Districts Vietnam Veterans Peacekeepers & Peacemakers Association. The volunteer run group is wholeheartedly dedicated to providing essential support measures like supporting veterans through transitions, helping veterans with their compensation claims and ensuring they get access to entitlements and services such as rehabilitation and wellbeing programs. I'll give a big thankyou to president and legendary advocate, trainer and mentor Ken Atkinson, vice-president Ian McMaster, treasurer Stephen Dorrington, wellbeing and welfare assistant Geoff Murray, secretary Ian Browne and office assistant Sue Tull. President Ken Atkinson is currently mentoring two trainees in the Mudgee area and six others across the state to ensure more veterans and their families will be empowered to improve their health and wellbeing, stay well and age well. I would like to thank all veterans for all they have done for our country and all local ex-service organisations for providing vital support to our veterans and their families. Budget 78 16:03 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I know people in our community are doing it tough now, and that's why dealing with the cost of living is my No. 1 priority, and it's the No. 1 priority of the Albanese Labor government. Wages will rise for the lowest-paid workers, 2.6 million Australians, from 1 July. That's why in the centrepiece of the federal budget there were tax cuts to start from 1 July. In my electorate, 80,000 taxpayers will get an average tax cut of $1,380, and 90 per cent of them will get more than they would have under the previous Morrison government. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. These tax cuts are part of a broader economic plan that includes cheaper child care, strengthening Medicare, cheaper medicines, helping households and small businesses with lower power bills, fee-free TAFE and getting wages moving again. A tax cut will be given to 13.6 million taxpayers, and $300 for energy price relief will be given to every household in my electorate, and there's $325 for every small business. We're providing assistance in terms of HECS-HELP relief for 22,935 people who are in need of a helping hand as they do their studies. We are also providing an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance for 12,630 households in Blair. That 10 per cent increase goes on top of the 15 per cent increase we did in the previous budget. The support we're providing for local people in our communities cannot be underestimated. It is absolutely vital. Those opposite wanted an election when it came to tax cuts and to changing those. They didn't support the energy price relief when we put it up previously. They give us platitudes and statements and nonsense, and it's always, again and again, about being concerned for the household needs of people in this country. Yet they would not support wage rises for the lowest-paid workers in this country. Not once during the nine years of the coalition government, from Abbott to Turnbull to Morrison, did they ever support wage rises for the lowest-paid workers in this country. It took a Labor government to do that, and that's why it's important for Labor governments to provide assistance. From 1 July this year, the manifestation of the commitment of the Labor Party to people, in terms of cost-of-living relief, will be there for everyone in my local community. Those opposite opposed it verbally, again and again voting against support for workers, households and small business. They claim they're the party of small business. Well, let me tell you: my community's not supporting the nuclear-power fantasy of those opposite. The Tarong Power Station is half an hour's drive from my electorate, but the people in my electorate won't support your nuclear fantasy. Superannuation 79 16:06 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon This government's got a bit on. One of the things it should be focusing on is fixing cost-of-living issues and the crisis that exists. I'm just shaking my head at the moment, because instead they're putting their time into where it isn't needed. They're focusing on wasting this parliament's time and fixing a problem that doesn't need fixing—it doesn't exist. The Albanese government think a small number of wealthy people are accumulating too much superannuation, so their solution is to introduce significant, complex and far-reaching legislation in response to this. What they're proposing is that, from 1 July next year, the tax rate on superannuation earnings for balances over $3 million be doubled to 30 per cent. When the government first proposed this measure, they were trying to capture a small number of individuals who had superannuation balances exceeding $50 million. I agree that super balances of that size are outside the original intent of our superannuation policy. But, having said that, I think these individuals have complied with the legislation as it stood at the time that they invested, and it was done in good faith. But this new legislation makes no sense when it comes to that. The laws have already been changed to prevent the accrual of huge super balances, and these supercharged balances will vanish over time due to existing policy measures. All this legislation will do is add further complexity, more red tape and more cost. Alarmingly, it will change the very way superannuation operates in this country. This government has proposed that unrealised capital gains be included in this measurement of earnings. This is such a naive position. I find it difficult to believe that a government would even put forward such legislation. How do you value an asset, in my case a farm, that is continuously fluctuating depending on market forces and nature? How do they not know that a paper increase is not money in anyone's pocket, particularly in a farmer's? What happens when the asset fluctuates up one year and down the next? A balance of $3 million might seem on the surface like a large sum of money now, but the lack of indexation will see more and more Australians caught by this measure as time passes. This is a policy that the Albanese government said was targeted at the super rich; well, it's not. It will actually erode super balances of every single Australian and send some small-business owners and farmers to the wall. Taxing unrealised capital gains is inherently unfair. It's bad policy and it should never have been introduced. King's Birthday Honours 79 16:09 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It's always a privilege to celebrate the achievements of my community, in parliament, and I want to say a special congratulations to all those who recently received a King's honour award. In Macquarie, six residents were honoured at the King's Birthday for their dedicated service to our community with the Medal of the Order of Australia. In Mount Wilson, Mary Holt received her OAM for dedication and service to conservation and the environment. Mrs Holt's involvement in the Australian Conservation Foundation dates back to 1985, and she continues to support the work of conservation organisations across the country. William Palmer was awarded an OAM for his outstanding service to the Hawkesbury, serving as an equipment officer, fundraiser and deputy captain of the Mountain Lagoon rural fire brigade. And I know his brigade were very proud of him. Morna Colbran received an OAM for her work with Winmalee Neighbourhood Centre. Morna's selfless dedication to our community has supported countless residents in their time of need, and not only in Winmalee. She's had an important role in supporting communities after the 2019-20 bushfires along Bells Line of Road, and in the flood recovery in the Hawkesbury in recent years. This honour goes a small way to recognising her impact. Laura Greaves from Faulconbridge received an OAM in recognition of her service to animal welfare. Ms Greaves is a self-described, proud, 'crazy dog lady'—they are her words—and a passionate advocate for animal-assisted therapy and its positive impact on the lives of children in foster care. From Springwood, Cheryl and Norm Kitto received their OAMs for their service to the people of the Blue Mountains and broader Western Sydney. I've known Norm and Cheryl's tireless work through Rotary, but both have been giving back since the 1970s, with Cheryl's recognition encompassing her service to people with disabilities, including her voluntary work with DARE disability services. Congratulations, Norm and Cheryl. In the meritorious awards category, Fiona Stalgis, the captain of the Winmalee rural fire brigade, was awarded an Australian Fire Service Medal, in recognition of her very distinguished service. Dr Malcolm Haddon received a Public Service Medal for outstanding public service in the promotion of multiculturalism, social cohesion and community harmony. His work at Multicultural NSW looks at the social impact of extremism and how to tackle it in an holistic way. Our community is a safer and more cohesive place, thanks to him. On behalf of everyone in Macquarie, thank you for your extraordinary contribution to our community. Casey Electorate: Community Events 80 16:12 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Recently, I had the opportunity to attend the Monbulk and district community bank awards night. It was a wonderful night, with over 40 community groups from Monbulk and the surrounding areas represented. I want to pay tribute to the board, who are all volunteers, and to Aimee and the team at the bank. What is so special about community banks, and the Bendigo Bank, is that they give money back to the community. Seventy-seven thousand dollars was given in sponsorship and grants, in this round, for April 2024, including for the Monbulk scouts, Monbulk College, the Monbulk fire brigade and many more. On the night, the bank also had tokens, and those in the community could put tokens in to support community groups. Over $25,000 was gifted to community groups at that time. The top three that were collecting the money were the Monbulk fire and rescue, the Emerald Monbulk Wildlife Shelter and the Monbulk Junior Football Club. There were many others—I don't have enough time to name them all. I was talking to locals there about how that very much sums up the spirit of Monbulk, as to the emergency services. We, in the Dandenong Ranges, know how important it is to have great, reliable, volunteer emergency services. They were No. 1 and we paid tribute to them. As to the Emerald Monbulk Wildlife Shelter, the environment is crucial to the community in Casey, in the Dandenong Ranges and in Monbulk, so it's no surprise to see the shelter at No. 2. And then it was the Monbulk Junior Football Club. Sport plays a massive part of the community in Monbulk and all communities across Casey. Junior sport is so important to giving kids those valuable life lessons. Boys and girls can learn teamwork, spirit and the need to lose and to improve. It was wonderful to be there. I really enjoyed the opportunity to catch up with my good friend, Jimmy Bras. I played soccer at Monbulk soccer club over 20 years ago now, and Jimmy was a legend of the club—one of the institutions there. It was great to see him, and he didn't look a day older than he did 20 years ago. Also, there was Leo Koelewyn. Jimmy and Leo were two of the founding members of the Bendigo bank, putting in their own time, money and effort. They've raised, and given back to the community, over a million dollars, it was announced. We are so lucky to have community banks all across Casey: the Belgrave community bank, the community bank of Upwey, the Monbulk and district community bank, the Mooroolbark community bank, the community bank of Mount Evelyn, the Healesville community bank, the Woori Yallock and district community bank, the Wandin-Seville community bank, and also Community Bank Warburton and the community bank of Yarra Junction—all run by volunteer boards; all giving back significant money to the community. I've been so lucky over the past two years to talk to the Bendigo Bank volunteers and board members and see firsthand the contribution they make to our communities. So I say thank you to those people who, 20, 30 and 40 years ago, had the vision to start the Bendigo Bank and those who continue the tradition today. O'Shea, Mr Michael Joseph (Mick), Environment 80 16:15 Mr 182468 Kingsford Smith THISTLETHWAITE (—) (): Michael Joseph O'Shea was a legend of the labour movement who, sadly, passed away in February this year, having lived a very full 90 years. He was dedicated to his family, his union, his Catholic faith, the Labor Party and the service of others. For an astounding 75 years, Mick dedicated himself to the Australian Workers Union, starting as a young shearer and a member and rising to become a respected organiser and, later, the New South Wales branch secretary and a life member of the AWU. I first met Mick when I started with the AWU at the age of 22, and we remained mates right up to the end. His life in the labour movement began in the shearing sheds of Coonamble, where, at just 15 years of age, he stepped into the role of provider for his family after the untimely loss of his father. Mick's early years as a shearer shaped his unwavering work ethic and his commitment to standing up for the rights of workers. He had a rare ability to resolve disputes with humour and compassion and was involved in some of the labour movement's toughest battles, including the wide comb dispute in the 1980s. Beyond his official duties, Mick's influence extended to supporting Labor candidates in the central west of New South Wales and establishing Country Labor in Dubbo. Mick and his wife, Shirley, were both life members of the Australian Labor Party. Even after retiring, Mick remained committed to service, volunteering with St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army. To Shirley, his beloved wife, and his family, I extend my deepest condolences. Rest in peace, Mick. On the environment: I am proud to be part of an Albanese government that is delivering stronger protections for the environment. Our Nature Positive Plan is another way of safeguarding our country's natural treasures, plants and animals. We're also establishing Australia's first-ever independent environment protection agency. Last Thursday evening, I joined 200 locals, with the member for Wentworth and Dr Stephen Lightfoot from the Australian Conservation Foundation, for the Eastern Sydney Q&A Nature Forum. The key topic of discussion was Labor's Nature Positive Plan. The community has welcomed our plan, noting that previous governments had failed to set up an agency to enforce environmental laws. Our reforms will enhance environmental protections while supporting sensible development—a commitment I've upheld throughout my parliamentary career. During the forum, I was asked about my efforts in defending the environment in Sydney's east. It provided me an opportunity to reflect on the significant achievements of our community, such as preserving Malabar Headland and creating the national park. I've also opposed the New South Wales Liberals' plans for a cruise ship terminal at Yarra Bay, in a successful campaign with the community there. We have managed to work together to save Little Bay, so far, from overdevelopment by Meriton, and prevented a large incinerator from being built in Matraville near residents. I'm committed to not only protecting nature but leaving it in a better state for future generations. Redland Hospital 81 16:18 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Today's CourierMail revealed that a constituent of mine spent 11 hours waiting to be seen at the Redland Hospital emergency department. Redland Hospital staff and patients are continuing to be let down by Labor government neglect and broken promises. Redland Hospital is the only metropolitan state hospital in Queensland without an intensive care unit, 24/7 general surgical services or inpatient orthopaedic services. Ambulance ramping, the key indicator of hospital efficiency, continues at alarming levels. At Redland, it has reached 73 per cent—the worst level ever recorded in Queensland. To fix this mess, the former coalition government provided $30 million to deliver a new ICU and 32 more beds by late 2022. Mismanagement from the state Labor government has resulted in this project being delayed by three years. The coalition also invested $16 million to upgrade car parking, but the state Labor government's unnecessary imposition of parking fees has led to an unfair cost burden on patients and staff and created local traffic chaos. Despite the promise to hypothecate the revenue from the car park to hospital improvements, the state Labor government is refusing to release how much has been raised through the imposition of paid parking at Redland Hospital. The state Labor government also promised to complete a $6 million business case for the next stage of the hospital expansion by the start of 2022. This promise has been broken, with planning now not to be considered until 2028 to 2032. We saw in the most recent state budget a tricky word game, where they're trying to pretend that another element of investment is the promised stage 2 upgrade, but Redlanders are too smart. They see straight through the what the Labor government is attempting to do with its spin. Sadly, the Miles Labor government is all announcement but no delivery. It is simply not good enough for a growing city like the Redlands to have such an inadequate hospital. This terrible neglect is jeopardising patient outcomes and putting strains on our dedicated hospital staff. I want to thank the LNP candidates in the Redlands, Amanda Stoker, Rebecca Young and Susanna Damianopoulos, for their tireless advocacy to get the Redlands the hospital that we deserve. I hope that in 130-odd days time, when Redlanders have an opportunity to enter the polling booth and cast their vote, they remember the failures that have been created within our hospital and vote for a change of government. Jagajaga Electorate: Housing 81 16:21 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga The Albanese Labor government is investing in housing, including in my community of Jagajaga. Last week I was really pleased to join with the member for Ivanhoe, Anthony Carbines; and Victorian minister Harriet Shing to announce new social and affordable housing for the Bell Bardia estate in West Heidelberg. The Bell Bardia estate will now benefit from a $27.5 million investment from the federal government to deliver 53 new social homes. That will be added to, with the Victorian government contributing an additional $27.5 million for 51 affordable dwellings. We will have 104 new social and affordable homes on the Bell Bardia estate in West Heidelberg. This is a great outcome for my community. The Bell/Bardia site has long been part of the West Heidelberg community. It previously hosted social housing, but that housing was rundown, and it had to be demolished. I am so pleased that this important part of the 3081 community will now be revitalised and that we will have53 social homes and 51 affordable homes built there. This is replacing what were rundown homes, renewing the estate and making sure that we continue to have social and affordable housing available in West Heidelberg. My thanks also goes to the community in West Heidelberg because I know that they are so supportive of this outcome, that they value the Bell Bardia estate and that they will be pleased to see this new housing going up there. We will now have a consultation process about the development, and I know that people will participate in that in good faith because, like me, they want to see social and affordable housing in West Heidelberg. I am really pleased that this also means that all levels of government are working together to ensure those in my community and right across the nation can access the safety and security that comes with having your own home. This includes record investments that our government is making. This year's budget includes an additional $6.2 billion in new investments to build more homes more quickly right around the country, while also providing more immediate support for those in need. That brings the total spend by our government to more than $32 billion. It is just one of the areas where we are addressing community need at the moment. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 23 to 16:45 Ms THWAITES 282212 This 1 July our government will support Australians to deal with the very real cost-of-living pressures they are feeling. There's a larger tax cut on 1 July than they would have received from the former government, $300 in electricity bill relief for every Australian household, a pay rise for workers, cheaper medication and two weeks more paid parental leave. We know there is more to do, but our government is absolutely committed to supporting Australians and making sure that we are providing cost-of-living support for households in my community and right around the country. Hanna, Mr Nader 82 16:46 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I'd like to pay tribute to Mr Nader Hanna who has worked at the Meadow Heights Education Centre, in my electorate, for almost 30 years, first as a teacher and then as CEO. With Nader's retirement, he leaves behind a legacy of what it means to fully contribute and make a difference in one's community. The Meadow Heights Learning Shop, a not-for-profit community organisation, started in 1993 as a very small community centre in a shopfront of the Meadow Heights Shopping Centre with a budget of just $15,000. In 1997 it became a registered training organisation, with English as a second language on their scope of registration. Since then they've expanded from Meadow Heights to Roxburgh Park, Craigieburn, Dallas, Sunbury and even as far as Port Melbourne. Meadow Heights Education Centre has been true to its purpose by improving the quality of life for my community in the areas of education, recreation, leisure and children's services. Its impact on migrants and refugees establishing themselves in a new home has been immeasurable. The Meadow Heights Learning Shop's empowerment of our community in a supportive, caring and engaging environment means that it's deserving of the recognition and standing it has. Over this time, the centre has successfully engaged learners from more than 23 different countries and cultures. With Nader's knowledge and perseverance, the centre has been able to keep educating the community when others may have given up. Through the trying times of COVID, Nader was the driving force in setting up ways that students could continue learning, reassuring students, many of whom were new to Australia and had not yet built a support system, that they were not alone. The Meadow Heights Education Centre was one of the few organisations that continued to stay open during the COVID lockdowns, combining a mix of teaching and learning strategies to ensure vulnerable students were not left without support. This also included the provision of food packages to needy families. As CEO, Nader was actively involved in creating partnerships with other community organisations and expanding the operations of the Meadow Heights Education Centre, ensuring that there were courses run through the school hubs in four primary schools in Hume and assisting neighbourhood houses that were struggling. Nader supported the centre's staff through the years, celebrating the happiest of times with laughter—often with his delicious homemade cakes—and was a pillar of strength through their hardest moments, encouraging every person he worked with to be the best version of themselves. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Nader Hanna for his commitment and dedication to our community over so many years, and I do want to wish him a very enjoyable, stress-free retirement. He will be immensely missed. His retirement is our community's loss, but I know, having spoken to Nader's wife, that she's absolutely thrilled that she's getting her husband back. Good luck to both of you. Queensland: Tourism Industry, Hinkler Electorate: Building and Construction Industry, Local Sporting Champions Program 83 16:49 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I'm testing my rates of recovery here, I have to say! Jetstar flights have started from Melbourne to Hervey Bay, in my electorate. What an incredible opportunity. The first flight touched down in Hervey Bay on Thursday last week. It's scheduled three times a week. The service will provide more than 1,100 seats each week between Melbourne and Hervey Bay. What a boost to tourism, what an opportunity for economic growth on the Fraser Coast and what a great opportunity for the people of Melbourne. Come up and have some Hervey Bay sea scallops and ocean king prawns or visit Fraser Island, which is in the member for Wide Bay's electorate but is still a good thing to see. We have Bundaberg Rum up to the north. Kalki Moon, for example, is an award-winning gin out of Bundaberg. There are a world of opportunities, so I'd encourage everyone from Melbourne to get on that flight three times a week and come to Queensland. Many Victorian people already live in Queensland. It makes no difference if you want to visit any of them. I've also had the opportunity to visit Pronto Modular, which is a construction firm in Bundaberg that is making affordable modular homes. It's a local business with local builders. They are constructing these in a dedicated offsite facility. It's not impacted by the weather. They use local trades and local opportunities. Thanks to Matt and Kyle for showing me around. Would you believe they also own Favours Coffee? What a combination—construction and coffee. It sounds like a wonderful combination to me. They just celebrated the second year in business for Favours Coffee. Etex is a plasterboard manufacturing plant at the Bundaberg port, which opened in 2017. I know the member for Moreton won't believe this, but it's off the back of a decision by the then Campbell Newman government to deliver a gas pipeline to the Bundaberg port, without which this facility could not proceed. We did have to fight and argue again when there was a change in government, but the gas pipeline was delivered. As a result more than 40 people are employed in a very important part of the construction industry, which is delivering plasterboard right around Queensland. Thanks to Justin and Katrina for showing me through the factory and explaining the ins and out of plasterboard manufacturing, which I've got to say, as an engineer, is fascinating. It's actually quite complex. It looks simple but it's very, very complicated. You have to turn things out to very, very fine measurements. It takes a lot of work and a lot technical expertise. Congratulations to them. It's been very helpful. Finally, to local sporting champions: 54 young athletes in the Hinkler region have received a funding boost to help them compete at state, national and international sporting competitions. They include five sets of siblings and four local para champions, who were also successful in round 4. Surf lifesaving, AFL, basketball, netball, volleyball and cycling—it's all there. There's an opportunity coming up: round 1 for 2024-25 is now open, and applications close on 31 July 2024. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 83 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 83

Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024

Second Reading 83 16:53 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024. With these amendments, the Albanese Labor government is working to protect consumers by implementing much needed regulation for the buy-now pay-later sector of the credit market. Buy now, pay later—or BNPL, as it is commonly known—simply means you can purchase a product but delay paying for it. A third party pays the merchant for the goods or service, and then the consumer makes payments in instalments over a period of time. Consumers are not charged interest but are charged a fee for the service. It's a variation on the hire purchase agreement that was around back in the sixties and seventies. It does sound pretty good. There's no doubt it's an attractive form of credit, especially when times are tough, like during the current cost-of-living pressures that many people in my electorate are currently facing. It's true that there are a lot of benefits to this Australian credit innovation. It provides cheaper access to credit in comparison to credit cards and expands the customer base for goods and services providers. The availability of buy-now pay-later increases competition and choice, and this is backed up by the statistics. Data released in March this year indicates that two in five Australians had used buy-now pay-later in the previous six months. However, some Australians are experiencing financial harm as a result of using buy-now pay-later services. The Australian government service Moneysmart cautions consumers that it can be easy to overspend and overcommit to spending what you can't afford when choosing BNPL. It can also be hard to manage multiple services at the same time and keep track of different payments. The biggest concern is the fees that are applied. Consumers are attracted by the 'interest free' or 'zero per cent interest' advertising. However, BNPL service providers may charge late fees if payments are missed, and these can be around $5 or up to $15, and then there are things like a monthly account fee of around $10. Some providers charge a payment-processing fee of around $3 every time a payment is made, and other providers charge an establishment fee to set up the account. This can be up to $110. Obviously all of these hidden costs can add up. Moneysmart further advises consumers to be careful when it comes to late payments, as they can form part of a credit report, affecting the ability to get a loan for a car or a mortgage, something much more substantial, later down the track. The number of Australians paying late fees has increased significantly from January 2020, when about five per cent of Australians were affected by those fees. In 2023 and more recently, we have been at 20 per cent of BNPL consumers having to pay late fees, which has increased the cost of the capital. As the Minister for Financial Services said, 'The risks of BNPL disproportionately impact upon vulnerable Australians, including First Nations Australians and those struggling financially.' Obviously that is significant. You can trust a Labor government to enact protections for consumers. In 2022 we made payday loans and consumer leases safer and applied better regulation to that sector. Now, with this bill, we're going after buy-now pay-later—that part of Australia's consumer credit regulation laws. This will bring buy-now pay-later products into line with other forms of consumer credit such as personal loans and credit cards. The current lack of regulation for BNPL can lead to poor product disclosure, excessive fees if the consumer defaults, unaffordable lending arrangements that lead to stress and hardship, and limited access to dispute resolution services. These reforms will require buy-now pay-later providers to have an Australian credit licence. They will also be required to comply with the requirements of the credit act, which implements standards for product disclosure, dispute resolution and, more importantly, hardship assistance. The measures are proportionate as well. Buy-now pay-later providers must meet responsible lending obligations. However, providers of products that have strict fee caps which fall into the category of low-cost credit will be able to comply with a modified responsible lending obligations framework. These amendments mean Australians can still benefit from buy-now pay-later, while receiving enhanced consumer protections. The bill also contains six other schedules. The first of these focuses on encouraging investment in the build-to-rent industry. Build-to-rent housing is typically multiunit buildings, where all of the units are rented out through a single management organisation. This is an established practice in places like the United States and Great Britain and only an emerging industry in Australia. In the past, it has primarily been used for luxury developments, but, with these amendments, the Albanese Labor government is focused on more affordable housing. As I'm sure all MPs know, there is such a housing crisis at the moment. Encouraging the development of build-to-rent dwellings will increase rental supply at a time when it is most needed, part of the Albanese Labor government's drive to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. This bill contains two tax incentives for new and eligible build-to-rent developments. Firstly, it reduces the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments such as distributions of rental income and capital gains from management investment trust investments to 15 per cent, bringing it down from 30 per cent. The second tax incentive increases the depreciation rate for capital works in eligible projects to four per cent per annum. That's up from two per cent per annum. This will cut the depreciation period from 40 years to 25 years. There are also specific conditions which must be met in order to guarantee housing supply. Some of the aspects are that the buildings must contain at least 50 or more units and the minimum length of lease must be three years, giving a stable roof over people's heads. At least 10 per cent of the units must be tenanted on an affordable basis as we need to guarantee a long-term, affordable housing supply. This means that the affordable homes must have their rents set at 74.9 per cent or less than the market rental of a similar home in the same building. The affordable and market-rate dwellings in the same building must be comparable and have equal quality finishings and fittings. To be eligible to rent an affordable dwelling, the household incomes of the tenants must be under the required income limits. Labor's housing reforms are the most significant in a generation. Our ambitious housing reform agenda has already made significant progress in tackling the housing challenges that were left to us by the opposition, where not as many houses were built. As we know, supply is the issue. Labor is helping more Australians into their own homes, and we're committed to our partnerships with the states and territories to keep doing this necessary work. It was good to hear from the housing minister today that the Queensland government is onboard and there will soon be more roofs put over the heads of people that are doing it tough. Bolstering the build-to-rent sector is another important way of building more homes for Australians. I want to particularly say that this week I've been dealing with one of my cousins, who is the same age and has had similar opportunities in life but is now living out of his car. So things can go off the rails very quickly. Schedule 3 of the bill concerns an amendment to the Medicare Levy Act 1986. It will exempt eligible lump sum payments in arrears from the Medicare levy from 1 July this year. The unlawful underpayment of employees' remuneration was identified in the Senate economics committee's inquiry from March 2022. The amendment ensures that taxpayers who receive an eligible lump sum payment to fix a previous underpayment do not incur an additional Medicare charge. Schedule 4 meets a core election commitment to ensure increased transparency in the tax dealings of large multinational corporations. Certain of these corporations will be required to publish tax information related to the jurisdictions in which they operate. This will provide Australians with more information about how much tax these corporations pay relative to their activities. That is the old 'set up a subsidiary in another country and then charge for the IP' or all those shonky practices—sharp practices, I should probably say, but close to shonky—that corporations were getting away with. Well, the world is now turning its gaze to corporations that do that. The affected corporations are those with an annual global income of $1 billion or more and with at least $10 million of turnover in Australia. These new rules for public country-by-country reporting put Australia at the forefront of a global trend for increased transparency and accountability for the tax affairs of multinational corporations. We are the 13th biggest economy in the world, so we can be a responsible leader when we work with like-minded countries, making sure that we hold these corporations to account. Schedule 5 of this bill adds several new entities as new deductible gift recipients, bolstering the not-for-profit sector and encouraging philanthropy in our community. Schedule 6 of the bill concerns the new National Skills Agreement. This bill amends the Federal Financial Relations Act to implement Commonwealth payments to the states and territories in accordance with the National Skills Agreement. Labor is directing $12.6 million in the voc ed and training sector to address skills shortages. The final raft of changes of this bill implement the 2024-25 budget initiative to extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses by 12 months, something welcomed by many small businesses. So those small businesses in Moreton with an annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to deduct eligible assets until 30 June next year. This will provide cash-flow support and simplification benefits for up to four million Australian small businesses, helping to ease some of the financial pressure they are currently enduring. The wide-ranging measures in this bill provide additional protections for Australian consumers, and they'll lead to additional rental supply and require more transparency from big business while supporting small businesses. I commend this legislation to the House. 17:04 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. This proposed legislation again highlights the stark difference between the two major parties. In fairness, I want to say that I believe that the government actually believes that what they have proposed is a good thing and will benefit the Australian public. However, as always happens, starting with an ideological view—that bigger governments and more government control of individual citizens' rights and lives is a better way than allowing people the freedom to choose with as little government interference as possible and to be masters of their own destiny—is always going to create policy that limits freedoms in our democratic nation. The build-to-rent component of the omnibus bill is a classic example of this ideology at work. The greatest solution for rentals is to legislate and fund pathways for ownership, not rental schemes. Yes, there are the odd individuals who make a choice to rent and never want to own their own home—I understand that—but in my experience, of talking to hundreds of people, this would be less than one per cent of those people. The vast majority of people would love to own their own home and take away the uncertainty that comes with renting: the uncertainty of your landlord selling what has become your home; the uncertainty of being able to make changes like hanging pictures, buying a pet, painting a wall or planting a garden; and the uncertainty of your rent increasing, mainly due to landlords having to meet mortgage repayments that have increased, in some cases, by $400 to $500 per week. Most of us, including me, started our journey after leaving home by renting until we were in a position to buy our first home. But this dream is evaporating. With the rising cost of dwellings; interest rates that have risen 12 times since Labor came to government; and the difficulty in living week to week, let alone saving for a deposit on a home, no wonder this generation see no hope in owning their own home. Rather than work on initiatives that encourage and give people hope when it comes to the great Australian dream of homeownership, the Labor government instead comes up instead with ideas on how to push more Australians into the rental market. It's astonishing. It smacks of a government that has simply given up or run out of ideas when it comes to the next generation of Australians owning their own home. I say to these young Australians—in fact, all Australians regardless of their age—that the coalition hasn't given up on you or your dream of owning your own home. Although the numbers according to the ABS say that the percentage of first home buyers dropped from 23 per cent in 2020 under the coalition to just 19 per cent in 2023 under the Labor government, I'm saying to you: don't stop believing. When the coalition are back in government, homeownership will be a reality again for all Australians. One of the many reasons Australians can't buy their own home is affordability. This legislation will only exacerbate this problem. The vast majority of investors in the scheme will be superannuation funds and foreign investors, both who have much deeper pockets than the average Australian family. Imagine a young twenty-something person or couple going to an auction to buy land to build a new home on, and bidding against a superannuation fund or foreign investor with deep pockets. I wonder who will come out on top there. The deputy leader got it bang on in his budget reply speech when he said that, if the coalition were elected, we would freeze foreign investment on housing for two years to free up stock, allowing Australians to buy these homes, not foreign investors, who then rent the same home they purchased to those Aussies who actually wanted to buy it in the first place. This, coupled with another policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition in that same budget reply speech, of allowing Australians to use part of their super for a deposit to get into the housing market, will again give Australians hope they can buy their own home. I cannot see how anyone could honestly believe that a family that wants to buy a home having to rent their whole life with their own money locked up in super—which means the first home they will buy will be when they retire and get their super—can possibly be better than using that money to get into the market when they're younger and, in all likelihood, owning the home when they retire. It makes no sense to me. The reduction of the instant asset write-off back to $20,000 is another kick in the guts to many already struggling small businesses. COVID showed us the benefits of having unlimited asset write-off. The purchasing of equipment went through the roof. The problem with Treasury is, quite simply, a very good accounting acumen but what I would say is a pretty poor business acumen simply through lack of real-world experience in business. I can tell you from personal business experience and from speaking to the business community that any money the government thinks they will lose based on Treasury advice by going to an unlimited instant asset write-off will be more than made up in the extra tax generated on purchases made by businesses through GST, the tax made on additional profits made by said businesses, the income tax paid by the extra employees on the higher sales made by these businesses and supplying the goods to the businesses that have placed the orders. The other issue is that, in defence of Treasury, they are simply not allowed to include estimates of any perceived secondary benefits. That could be changed by government if they had any guts to take that risk. The difference here is that we have actual data from the pandemic when we introduced these measures. I know that, in one of the small businesses I had ownership in during the pandemic, we had held off buying some equipment for years due to the size of the expenditure and the fact that we would have to wait four years to receive the full tax benefit under the depreciation schedule. The business and employees suffered because we couldn't afford to invest the money in equipment that would have made our lives easier and improved our customers' experience. The company we were looking to purchase the equipment from missed out on a sale of around $200,000. The government missed out on $20,000 in GST, the tax on the profit of the company supplying the goods, the income tax from the extra staff the supplier could have hired and all the benefits around the logistical and installation work, all because of stupid depreciation. When COVID hit and the coalition finally took the limit off the amount of the asset you could write off, the first thing that that business I was involved in did was buy that equipment, so the government got the $20,000 in GST, tax from the profits of the supplier and the extra income from all associated workers. Our business increased by 20 per cent with the new equipment, which meant we paid more tax as a business, with more GST collected and more profits made. We employed more staff to handle the extra sales, and of course they all paid tax. If we had not had the unlimited instant asset write-off, none of this would have happened. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:12 to 17:25 Mr YOUNG 201906 Depreciation has got to be the most single-minded, stupid policy ever instigated, and someone needs to have the courage to get rid of it altogether. Whoever does will reap the benefits of that courage. Tradies and other businesses will upgrade their equipment, like their utes, more often if they can write off the entire amount and not depreciate it. This creates greater tax income for the government through extra GST and other associated taxes I have already mentioned. That's not to mention that this will increase the supply of second-hand vehicles and therefore reduce the price of these used vehicles for those starting out or not in a position yet to purchase a new vehicle. Again, it is all winners and no losers in this scenario. The buy-now pay-later scheme is something I have personally seen the development of in my previous life in retail. I can remember the days of Avco and AGC CreditLine in the 1980s, when interest rates from those companies and those credit providers were in the high 20s. I can see one of the clerks smiling there who might be familiar with that. For a generation who had mortgages of up to 20 per cent, this wasn't a deterrent. Slowly, we have seen this market evolve to interest-free programs where the retailer and, really, all consumers pay. It's now just another cost of doing business. A business has to put in their budget the cost of doing these interest-free programs when pricing their goods or services, now that we're at the buy-now pay-later offering made by companies like Afterpay and Zip Pay. The preferred option, of course, is that people would not require any type of loan to pay for goods and services. We'd much rather that they just pay cash and pay for the goods. But the reality is that, in times just like this, when we have a cost-of-living crisis and the average mortgage holder is paying an extra $500 a week on their mortgage due to this Labor government's management—or, should I say, mismanagement—of the economy, they now more than ever need access to fast, easy, affordable credit that allows them to purchase essential items. I would much rather that they use these reputable buy-now pay-later lenders than the payday lenders. It should be noted that these buy-now pay-later lenders and the providers of all other interest-free credit in the main are far more ethical, in my experience, than these payday loan sharks, who prey on the vulnerable in our communities with exorbitant interest rates and destroy innocent Australians' credit ratings. These companies, in contrast, are paid fees by retailers and employ over 140,000 Australians, and they do not impact the credit rating of their customers. The coalition did much good work in this space, with a minister specifically dedicated to this space to ensure the fine balance of ensuring consumers were protected from unscrupulous finance companies while ensuring Australians were not deprived of receiving their goods and services. In some cases, they are desperately needed. This is just another example of government interference and overreach in a space that, in the main, has been working well. Of course, this government interference will increase the cost to providers, which then will need to be recouped by these companies. And you guessed it—it will be the already stressed average Aussie that will bear this cost in this cost-of-living crisis. Australians need legislation and policies that cut red tape and therefore the cost to businesses so that this can flow through to financially stressed Australians, not legislation that adds to financial stress. When the coalition is next in government, whenever that is, we have got a plan to get Australia back on track as far as the economy goes. We will rein in inflationary spending to take the pressure off inflation. For example, we will not spend $13.7 billion on corporate welfare for green hydrogen, which many experts say is completely a myth, and critical minerals. We will wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses from getting ahead. We will condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing mining, jobs and those who have an entrepreneurial spirit. We will provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all, because Australians should keep more of what they earn—as to which, I'm so flattered that something we coined four years ago is now being taken up, with gusto, by the Labor Party. We will deliver competition policy, which gives consumers and small businesses—not lobbyists and big corporations—a fair go. We will ensure Australians have more affordable and reliable energy, as well as cleaner energy. Our economic plan, with its tried and tested principles, will restore competitiveness and rebuild economic confidence. 17:30 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I am pleased to be speaking on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, which continues our government's delivery when it comes to financial matters—making a difference to consumers, as well as delivering on important issues that we committed to at the last election. I will start with buy now, pay later. The changes in this bill are really focused on the government protecting Australians from the risk of financial harms. We are putting in place commonsense protections that will make it safer for consumers who choose to use buy-now pay-later schemes. Buy-now pay-later schemes can be very useful for many consumers, but we do need to realise that there are also risks involved, and I think we also need to realise the types of uses that people are using buy now, pay later for. There is often a sense that someone may be buying that new jacket or dress that is just a little bit out of reach. In fact, what a lot of the data shows us is that it is people on quite low incomes often trying to buy essentials. We don't want those people left in a more vulnerable position than they already are. Primarily, what this bill does is to ensure that Australia's credit laws are appropriate for current needs. It responds to trends we're seeing in the credit markets. In our first six months in government, we delivered on legislation that made payday loans and consumer leases safer, with better regulations in place to protect people using them. Now it is time to, similarly, deliver this appropriate regulation on buy-now pay-later schemes. As I said, while buy-now pay-later schemes can benefit both consumers and businesses, they can also cause financial harm. Research conducted by Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand in 2022 found some concerning points in relation to how buy-now pay-later schemes were being used by many people in Australia. Around 73 per cent of the financial counsellors working for Good Shepherd said that their clients had missed other payments and had cut back on or gone without essentials in order to pay and service their buy-now pay-later debt. It is people on lower incomes that are using buy now, pay later for essentials—more so, as I said, than it is people using it as a tool for that discretionary spending. So there is a need for sensible regulation that provides appropriate consumer protections while also allowing consumers to continue to benefit from buy now, pay later. This bill brings buy-now pay-later products into line with other products like credit cards and personal loans, ensuring they are regulated under the credit act. The regulatory framework is designed to operate in a way that's flexible, adaptable and proportionate to the risk of consumer harm. Buy-now pay-later arrangements often involve a third party providing consumer finance to cover purchases of goods and services and the payment of bills. Providers in this space pay the merchant the value of the purchase upfront, and they then collect repayments from consumers in instalments. Despite this, really, functionally, being a form of credit, as I've said, buy-now pay-later products are not currently subject to the regulatory framework that applies to other credit products. So we have a gap here which has been exposing people to potentially harmful outcomes. It can lead to poor product disclosure, inadequate dispute resolution processes, excessive default fees and unaffordable lending practices that lead to hardship and financial stress. These amendments will require buy-now pay-later providers to hold an Australian credit licence and comply with existing requirements under the credit act—including in relation to product disclosure, dispute resolution and hardship assistance. And buy-now pay-later providers will also be subject to responsible lending obligations. These are really reasonable changes. They are not overly onerous. They are about ensuring there is the appropriate level of consumer protection in place for products that we know a lot of people use. They will ensure Australians can continue to enjoy the benefits of buy-now pay-later while also receiving those appropriate protections, making sure we keep up with the technological change that we see, recognising that these types of credit products are increasingly popular, and all the while making sure that we keep the focus on how we support consumers in this space. Another important part of this bill that I want to highlight is the work we are doing on build-to-rent investments. This will be important in helping to expand Australia's housing supply. It will help to increase rental supply at scale, at a time when there is an acute shortage of new rental stock. That 'at scale' part is actually quite important in this. We know that we need more rental houses in this country—just like we need more affordable houses, more social houses, more houses in general—but we absolutely need more rental supply at scale. Build-to-rent is already an established practice in the United States and the United Kingdom, but it has been a relatively small industry here in Australia. There is significant scope for build-to-rent developments to now contribute to increasing our nation's rental housing supply at a time when we really need it. This bill provides two tax incentives which encourage investment in the build-to-rent sector and increase housing supply. It will increase the depreciation rate for capital works in eligible projects to four per cent per annum, reducing the period these costs are depreciated over from 40 years to 25 years. And it reduces the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments from managed investment trust investments to 15 per cent from 30 per cent, increasing after-tax returns for foreign residents who invest in eligible projects. In addition, at least 10 per cent of dwellings in the new developments assisted by these measures must be tenanted on an affordable basis, again delivering more long-term affordable rental supply—much needed and much needed at scale. These affordable dwellings must have their rent set at 74.9 per cent, or less than that, of the market rent of a comparable dwelling in the same project. For tenants to be eligible for these affordable houses, their household income must be under the required income limits, which are set according to the composition of their household. The affordable dwellings will have to be comparable to the non-affordable dwellings, making sure that the affordable houses are of equal status as the non-affordable houses. This will be really important in picking up an area that has been underdone in this country, where we have scope to expand and where we desperately need investment in more rental housing. These measures will apply from 1 July this year. There is a lot more in this bill, including a Medicare levy exemption for lump-sum payments, multinational tax transparency, and DGR status for more organisations. There is some work on the National Skills Agreement. There is the instant asset write-off. There are a lot of important commitments that our government has made and is delivering on. I will conclude my remarks there and commend the bill to the House. 17:38 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin The Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is an omnibus bill, addressing a wide range of topics. I won't address all schedules, but I do want to draw attention to and speak to a few of the changes. I will start with schedule 1, build-to-rent developments. The Australian rental market is in one of the tightest periods of supply that we've ever experienced. The private rental market is already deeply unaffordable, with nearly 70 per cent of renters experiencing rental stress. Addressing our housing crisis will require a lot of different actions being taken, by governments of all levels. There is no silver bullet, and incentivising build-to-rent projects will not fix it, but every bit helps. Build-to-rent projects are an important addition to our housing mix. Build-to-rent is as it sounds: a developer builds a multiunit building and then, rather than selling individual units, the developer retains ownership of the building, and the units are rented to tenants. Rents may be set at market rates or, in the case of affordable housing, may be discounted with appropriate government support. The figures are debated, but in Australia the build-to-rent sector is somewhere between only 0.2 per cent, according to the Property Council, and three per cent, according to REIWA, of the housing market. Interestingly, I discovered that Australia's first build-to-rent project was opened in 2019 in my electorate's suburb of Subiaco. It was built by an American real estate investment management firm. Since opening their first project, they have gone on to open two more apartment buildings, providing 264 one-, two- and three-bedroom build-to-rent apartments. These apartments have been at near 100 per cent capacity since opening, which goes to show we need more. Schedule 1 of this bill will reduce the managed investment trusts withholding tax rate from 30 per cent to 15 per cent and increase the capital works deduction from 2.5 per cent to four per cent. It's using the tax system to create a more attractive investment environment for developers looking at buy to rent. That's going to make it more attractive to investors. Across the board, stakeholders are pretty supportive of this measure. I'm particularly supportive of the requirement for 10 per cent of dwellings in a build-to-rent development to be affordable housing. In 2022 the WA state government announced a 50 per cent exemption from land tax for up to 20 years for build-to-rent developments. Since then, the WA government has announced two projects that will go ahead, with three more projects progressing through a shortlist of offers. Secondly, I'd like to address schedule 2, buy now, pay later. I also support the measures in this schedule, which regulate the buy-now pay-later industry to provide appropriate and proportionate protections to consumers who enter buy-now pay-later contracts as a type of low-cost credit contract. It requires providers of low-cost credit contracts to hold and maintain an Australian credit licence and comply with the relevant licensing requirements and licensee obligations. Buy now, pay later has slipped through the cracks until now, and I'm pleased to see it being regulated appropriately to protect people. Financial regulations are particularly important when they affect people who are vulnerable. The catchphrase for buy now, pay later is that it's easy and accessible. Unfortunately, this includes being easy and accessible to people who are already in or at risk of financial hardship. Buy now, pay later is not marketed as credit, but with no affordability assessment it can easily get you into debt. The Review of the small amount credit contract laws final report, from a review which was established to consider and report on the effectiveness of these laws, was published in March 2016. Some of the recommendations have been implemented, and this legislation implements some more, including enhancing consumer protections for buy-now pay-later schemes and creating more robust anti-avoidance provisions so that all buy-now pay-later schemes are regulated equally. Regulating this market will protect people like Alex and Ash in Perth, who've sought support from financial counsellors through the Financial Wellbeing Collective. Alex and Ash were 19 and 20 when they presented for financial counselling accompanied by their parents. At the initial appointment, a total of 12 buy-now pay-later accounts and four loans were disclosed, amounting to more than $20,000 between them. All loans were obtained online, with no financial assessment or proof of income required. The credit was accrued largely for retail items like clothes and shoes. These young people were employed, earning under $20,000 each per year, supplemented by Centrelink allowances. As their parents considered them financial dependants, they had paid to clear their previous debts. But, as this was a recurring issue, they sought help through financial counselling for advocacy and education. All buy-now pay-later providers insisted on repayment arrangements, with some matters having to be escalated to internal dispute resolution. The financial counsellor revisited the budget based on the repayments. With the repayments, their expenses exceeded their fortnightly income. These young people were fortunate to be supported by their parents, who would cover the cost of food and housing. While this was just a learning experience for these young people, it's also an example of the consequences of easily accessible credit online. That is just one of many stories. Data from the Financial Wellbeing Collective for the last 12 months in Perth shows that 47 per cent of buy-now pay-later users were on government benefits, 60 per cent of users were earning under $60,000, and 30 per cent were not in the labour force. Many of these clients presented for financial counselling as they were struggling to maintain their household budgets with the rising cost of living. They were on a low, restricted or inadequate income. Many were impacted by mental health as well. Financial counsellors and financial coaches from the collective shared their concerns about buy-now pay-later. Buy-now pay-later services are used to supplement insufficient income. Many clients report purchasing gift cards from buy-now pay-later providers to purchase essential items, including food and petrol. For users on low incomes, a significant percentage of income goes towards meeting buy-now pay-later repayment obligations, impacting other financial obligations and leading to higher reliance on emergency relief as well as contributing to growing utility debt and rent arrears. It's too simple to access buy-now pay-later, with no safeguards such as income, serviceability and/or credit checks by various providers. Financial coaches have observed the behavioural change in mindset as buy-now pay-later services have become more popular. This has prompted a potential decline of long-term savings habits as buy-now pay-later enables impulsive spending and overcommitment. There's heavy advertising of buy-now pay-later in stores and online. Many clients reported having multiple accounts and do not view buy-now pay-later as credit. Clients are hesitant to seek hardship assistance for buy-now pay-later debts and generally prefer to prioritise these instalments and seek hardship for utilities and essentials. Buy-now pay-later is often shrewdly marketed as a budgeting tool. Clients view it as a contingency plan and don't want to risk losing access. The tightening of the regulations around accessing buy-now pay-later is long overdue, and this bill is definitely a welcome step in the right direction. Thirdly, I have some brief comments to make on a schedule 4, multinational tax transparency. Transparency and disclosure of multinational tax information is essential, both for investment managers in making decisions about the companies in which they invest and in contributing to public debate on tax issues. For this reason, any data provided should also be comparable to disclosures in other significant jurisdictions. I support the introduction of new country-by-country reporting measures which align with the international EU directive. Stakeholders have told me they're pleased this schedule in the bill has been updated with amendments made after government consulted with interested parties. This is a good example of effective consultation resulting in a better piece of legislation. Across the board, stakeholders are supportive in principle of this bill, but I note there are some unresolved issues that could be addressed either through delegated legislation or through ATO guidance. These include the following. CBC disclosure requirements should be consistent with both international and domestic rules. Commercially sensitive information that's released under reporting requirements should be protected. The materiality threshold should include a minimum dollar value and a proportionality test based on an entity's presence in Australia. Clarity is needed on the administrative aspects of this proposed measure regarding how to submit information to the commissioner and what constitutes a material error, and it requires proactive engagement from the ATO. I urge the government to consider these issues when they draft implementation regulations. I also recommend the government conduct a review of the legislation a year after implementation to address any operational issues if they arise. Finally, I want to speak to schedule 7, the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business entities. Small businesses serve as the engines of innovation and economic vitality in Australia. This schedule is welcome and is an additional temporary 12-month extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. Like the previous instant asset write-off, small businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct the full cost of eligible assets costing less than $20,000 first used or installed ready for use between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025. Australian businesses require consistency and certainty to plan and invest in the future. While the temporary extension is welcome, I urge the government to legislate a permanent increase in the instant asset write-off threshold rather than this bandaid approach of ever-changing temporary threshold increases. Similarly, it should apply to medium-sized businesses as well. Extending this instant asset write-off to business entities with aggregated turnover of between $10 million and $50 million—that is, all base rate entities—would incentivise further investment with a practical and reasonable threshold. I'd support an amendment to this effect. I won't comment on the remaining schedules to this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 17:49 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong As we've heard, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a number of schedules—I think seven—which deal with a range of financial measures and changes to the way our laws work to ensure that we can deliver on our election commitments and our commitments in government. I will be talking in detail on two of the schedules and then might touch on some others towards the end. I believe two schedules in particular are really important for dealing with some financial matters and our housing crisis. This legislation represents a crucial step forward in addressing the urgent housing crisis. One of the schedules also deals with greater consumer protections in the buy-now pay-later sector. By focusing on the critical area of build-to-rent developments in the regulation of buy-now pay-later services, we're trying to create more affordable housing options for Australians and ensuring that Australians are not left vulnerable to unregulated credit practices, which seem to exist in the buy-now pay-later sector at the moment. This bill is about fairness, security and future wellbeing for all Australians. On schedule 1: it's no surprise to anyone in this place that Australia is grappling with a housing and rental crisis. The availability of affordable rental housing is at an all-time low, and many Australians are struggling to find secure, long-term rental housing. This government has made the decision on a policy front for all housing to increase supply, because we know that increasing supply is one of the best ways to help with affordability. In the last two years, we've introduced $32 billion in measures as part of our Homes for Australia Plan, primarily to increase supply. An important part of providing more housing supply is that we provide a range of different housing types. So pervasive is this crisis that we need all types of homes in all areas. We need houses that people can buy. We need houses that people can rent. We need social housing right across the country and we need affordable housing. We need market rates. We need non-market rates for housing. An important part of the housing mix is build-to-rent, so schedule 1 of this bill introduces critical incentives for the build-to-rent sector, a model that has proven very successful in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom and one that is just getting off the ground here in Australia. Build-to-rent housing provides flexible housing types where one development can have both affordable rental properties and market rental properties and will provide much-needed rental stock for Australians. As the housing stock in build-to-rent can only be rented, it is often the case that rental agreements favour tenants much more than traditional rental arrangements. Build-to-rent enables tenants to have longer-term rents, which works very well for families who want to establish themselves in a neighbourhood, particularly when sending their kids to a local school. With one-year tenancies it is really hard to establish yourself in a neighbourhood, and build-to-rent can provide longer-term tenancies, like five- or 10-year tenancies. I am sure build-to-rent will become a really important part of our housing mix, and this bill provides two significant tax incentives to encourage investment in this housing type. This bill increases the depreciation rate for capital works in eligible build-to-rent projects to four per cent per annum and reduces the depreciation period from 40 years to 25 years. It also reduces the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments from managed investment trust to 15 per cent from 30 per cent. It halves it. Therefore, it increases the after-tax returns for foreign investors in these projects. These tax withholding rate changes that are proposed in this bill—as I mentioned, halving them—puts build-to-rent, puts housing, on the same footing as other important infrastructure investments. This is important because Labor sees housing as critical infrastructure. These tax withholding changes will treat build-to-rent housing just as they usually would railway lines or highways, really important nation-building infrastructure. Measures in this bill are designed to make build-to-rent developments more financially attractive, encouraging an increase in rental housing supply, which we desperately need. In my electorate of Bennelong, Macquarie Park stands as a prime example, soon to be Sydney's home of build-to-rent. The Goodman Group has proposed two major build-to-rent projects in my electorate, featuring a total of 1,236 apartments, as well as retail spaces, recreational facilities and parking. These developments aim to repurpose underutilised commercial land to address housing demand. Additionally, Stockland have put forward a new proposal for the second stage of their MPark precinct, in Macquarie Park, to include build-to-rent as part of a commercial and residential housing mix. Their proposal includes approximately 485 apartments, delivering a mixed-use precinct that includes build-to-rent, retail and commercial. Since the pandemic, people want to live close to where they work, and I'm not surprised that Macquarie Park will be home to build-to-rent in the future. These developments are not just about increasing the number of available rental properties to help with the housing crisis but also about creating vibrant, balanced communities with both residential and commercial spaces supported by enhanced public transport, as we have in Bennelong. Importantly, this bill mandates that at least 10 per cent of the new dwellings in a build-to-rent development that takes advantage of these tax concessions need to be tenanted on an affordable basis. That means the rent for these units must be set at a 25 per cent discount from the market rental rate. Traditionally those affordable rental dwellings have gone to key workers and people on low to moderate incomes, which is really important. This measure ensures that more long-term affordable rental options are available, directly addressing the needs of key workers like nurses and teachers and those on low to medium incomes. By providing these tax incentives and by requiring that affordable housing forms part of these developments, this bill strikes a balance between encouraging investment in this new housing type and ensuring that the benefits of these investments are shared with the entire community. Diversity of housing is incredibly important, and build-to-rent will help with that. I'll now go to schedule 2, which makes some long-overdue and important changes to buy-now pay-later products like Afterpay, Zip Pay and humm—there are quite a few of them now. Buy-now pay-later is a great Aussie invention and one that we should be pretty proud of. It has provided much-needed disruption in the short-term credit market, which has been typically dominated by credit cards and in some instances by payday lenders—and we've all dealt with some constituents who have had issues with payday lenders, and that led to reform in that sector. Buy-now pay-later has helped small businesses sell more and has provided an affordable short-term credit option for consumers who would have otherwise only had payday loans at ridiculously high interest rates or credit cards as their options. However, like all good innovations, it has avoided regulation. Essentially buy-now pay-later is a credit product, and, rightly, the government should regulate this sector, and that's what this schedule seeks to do. To their credit the buy-now pay-later sector have worked with government to ensure that they are appropriately covered by this credit regulation. Schedule 2 brings buy-now pay-later products into line with other credit products by ensuring that they are regulated under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. Without proper regulations on these services, many people could face poor product disclosure, leaving them unaware of the true cost of the services they use. Additionally, inadequate dispute resolution processes mean that, when problems arise, consumers often struggle to get fair and timely resolutions. Excessive default fees, as we know, can quickly escalate, turning a convenient service into a financial burden. By bringing these buy-now pay-later products under the credit act, the government's aim is to protect consumers, ensuring that they have clear information, fair resources in disputes and access to credit that does not compromise their financial stability. The amendments in schedule 2 will require buy-now pay-later providers like Afterpay and Zip Pay to hold an Australian credit licence and comply with existing requirements under the credit act, including product disclosure, dispute resolution and hardship assistance. Many of those providers are doing elements of this already, but regulating it is an incredibly important step. Buy-now pay-later providers will also be subject to responsible lending obligations, which is an important reform. Providers of products that meet strict fee caps and are categorised as low-cost credit will have the option to comply with a modified responsible lending framework, and this will ensure that, while consumers continue to benefit from buy-now pay-later—something that I know is really popular, particularly for younger people—they will be protected from potential financial distress. They are accessing a credit product. That product should be treated as such. This approach provides appropriate and proportionate consumer protections, while maintaining the accessibility of buy-now pay-later and ensuring that the sector continues to innovate. In conclusion: lots of people find these TLABs pretty boring and dry—there are lots of numbers, lots of schedules, lots of stats—but this one here today shows that we are about supporting housing and that we want to support people who are accessing credit products. There are even measures in there to help small business, with the extension of the instant asset tax write-off. Ensuring that we encourage more investment in housing is about helping families right across the country—but particularly in Bennelong—who are struggling to find affordable rent. It's about helping families move into great places like Macquarie Park, where they will have access to amazing jobs, amazing public transport and more rental housing options. And, of course, as I mentioned, the bill will help people who use the very popular buy-now pay-later services and ensure that they have some protection afforded to them by regulation. I commend the bill to the House. 18:01 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 as a whole, but I will raise particular concerns I have with parts of the bill. It's almost like an omnibus bill when you're not having an omnibus bill. Initially I'd like to talk about build-to-rent schemes—multiunit buildings where units are rented out through a single management entity. These are commonplace throughout Europe, the United States and Japan, where institutional investors build houses, and they are managed by a professional landlord. The benefit is that it encourages long-term investment in housing purpose-built for rent. The Property Council articulated that benefit. The challenge is relatively low rental yields for investors. Tax reforms such as those included in this bill will help to address this. Reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments—rental income and capital gains from managed investment trust investments—from 30 per cent to 15 per cent is a welcome step, as is increasing the deduction rate for capital works in eligible developments from 2.5 to four per cent per annum. This should encourage investment in build-to-rent, which I support as a means to foster a global proven model to address housing affordability and availability. We need to have lots of different options out there to build our stock. I've previously tabled a housing report which recommended reforms to help build-to-rent take off in Australia. The bulk of these reforms is that investors must provide for at least 10 per cent of dwellings in new dwellings accessing these measures to be rented out on an affordable basis, to deliver long-term affordable rental supply. That's really critical. We need to make sure that we have a really robust tenant mix. A measure that I have been championing for seven years in this parliament is buy-now pay-later. I'm really pleased to see that it is part of this bill. This bill is a good start, but I believe that the consumer protections that are in this bill could even be improved further. I have, as I said, advocated for many years on this. Really my advocacy for this came from about 15 years ago, or maybe more than that, when I was working in an electorate office. We had a lovely elderly gentleman come into the electorate office. He had a television. He had had this television for about 15 years, and it was one of those tiny 36-centimetre televisions. I calculated that, with what he had spent in renting this television, he could have bought a huge flatscreen television. The problem was that every month he would make a payment—I think it was $10 a week—but he was never able to pull together the money to do the balloon payment at the end, which was $150. This was for a product that, if he had gone to sell it on Gumtree or Facebook Marketplace or whatever, perhaps would have only got $40 or $50 at the time. It was heartbreaking to see somebody who I felt had been taken advantage of in this system, so I'm really pleased that we are going to have some protections around here. With respect to that gentleman, I contacted the organisation and did a bit of a full Karen on them, and they managed to waive the rest of that contract. But, for all the people that don't come in, that don't visit a member of parliament and that keep paying those amounts, it is heartbreaking. The government estimates that there are now seven million buy-now pay-later accounts in Australia. I have previously identified concerns in consultation with consumer advocates, including the accumulation of buy-now pay-later contracts which were not able to be effectively serviced, resulting in millions of dollars in late fees every year. And that's where they're making their money—the late fees. Yet not until now have lenders been bound by responsible lending obligations, which is extraordinary. Applying the credit act to buy-now pay-later contracts is a move in the right direction. Providers will now be required to hold Australian credit licences and to comply with new credit regulations created for a new category: low-cost credit contracts. Low-cost credit providers will choose between a modified responsible lending obligation framework or the existing framework under the credit act. They will be under an obligation to determine that any credit they provide is affordable and meets the consumer's needs, and that's critical. Regulatory impact will depend on risk factors such as the nature of the products and the provider's harm mitigation strategies. Small amounts below $2,000 will be regulated less rigorously as a small-amount credit contract or continuing credit contract. The government states that this will provide appropriate and proportionate consumer protections. Concerns have been identified, however, regarding the levels of consumer protections in this bill. The Consumer Action Law Centre and CHOICE say that they intend to provide a joint submission to the Senate economics committee, which will be inquiring into this bill. It is often the case that the government wants to appear to push the bill through the House. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the time constraints in front of us. It's frustrating that that often happens before a Senate committee reports, but hopefully we may see some further amendments to this. In the interim, I have consulted with the Consumer Action Law Centre, and they are keen to see this bill passed in this place. We need to see some regulation in the credit space. Those hardships are particularly keenly felt with those who have the least opportunity to access legal advice and consumer advice and those who often desperately need the funds to be able to get out of a very tight spot. Or, in many cases, they are young people. When I've talked to young people and we've talked about the amount of interest with the late fees and what it equates to in interest, many of them are completely shocked. Honestly, I would love to see this as part of our education system. When we're doing maths, particularly in high school, we should have a good understanding of credit card interest and interest on other things, such as payday lending, and even how to calculate that interest. I think that we need to do more in that space to ensure that a lot of the next generation do not fall into debt traps. With respect to this bill, this bill grants concessions to the buy-now pay-later sector by not subjecting them to certain requirements, and consumer advocates argue that this concession is not necessary. I think we can do more in this place to strengthen this bill. Under watered down credit obligations for buy-now pay-later, only a partial check would be required—and for under $2,000 contracts just a negative credit check is required. Two thousand dollars is quite substantial when you start adding in late fees and other payments, and very quickly the amount can balloon. A partial or negative credit check is not a holistic measure of a person's capacity to pay. They may capture red flags. If it's above $2,000 it will allow them to see what other money is loaned. However, they won't capture payday loans and other scenarios. A person with a good credit score may still be in financial difficulty, leaving them open to unsuitable buy-now pay-later lending. So this is a big, ugly and harmful concession to the industry. My final concern is with respect to higher value buy-now pay-later products because the legislation places no caps on how much can be lent to a consumer. I think that is troubling in the buy-now pay-later sector. The lesser, watered down regulatory regime is based on the idea that providers can't charge fees. However, as I've said, even with low fees, if a person takes out a $30,000 loan the repayments will be significant. It would be better to have an upper cap of $5,000 or perhaps a maximum of $10,000, which is the bankruptcy threshold. If you can be made bankrupt by a loan, then the provider should comply with full credit regulation requirements. I'm advised that this is an emerging issue in relation to solar panel sales, for example, through buy-now pay-later, resulting in buyers being signed up to loans that they have no capacity to repay. Consumer advocates like the Consumer Action Law Centre and CHOICE then hear through financial counsellors that borrowers are panicking that they may lose their house over a loan that they just can't afford. I note the banking sector didn't express a strong or unified position on this, perhaps because some banks are now also providers of buy-now pay-later products as well as credit. However, I do support the bill and hope that it can be strengthened in the debate. Regarding other provisions that are part of this larger piece of legislation, I support the Medicare levy exemption for lump sum payments to ensure that the Medicare levy is not payable with respect to eligible lump sum payments in arrears, such as compensation for underpaid wages. Multinational tax transparency is another good, solid measure with country-to-country reporting. Tax transparency across jurisdictions for large multinationals with an annual global income of $1 billion-plus—which will be set by legislative instrument by Treasury ministers—will help improve information sharing and assist in the effectiveness and appropriateness of current tax settings as well as enhance and inform public debate. This is a very good measure. There are also measures with respect to deductible gift recipients. I support this and support the expanded list. I do think we can do a lot more in the philanthropy space. We know that there are a lot of people and organisations that aren't even aware of DGR status. Some organisations don't know how to apply for it, and it is a very burdensome thing to apply for. We can do a lot more in this space around education. We could, perhaps, even make it a little bit easier for organisations, and share information with people who may wish to make a donation on how they can do that. The National Skills Agreement payments is another measure I support. One area I think is really lacking is the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses. This is a tokenistic approach, if we genuinely want to see small businesses thrive in this nation. You can't buy even the most simple, basic piece of equipment for $20,000, you can't buy a vehicle, you can't buy much at all. We know that many small businesses are having a very, very challenging time at the moment, so I think this threshold of $20,000 really needs to be looked at by government. If we genuinely want small businesses to grow, to stretch and to invest huge sums of money, why would we not lift that threshold to make it more attractive for them to do so? Twenty thousand dollars—I can't remember the last time it was so low. During COVID, it went up significantly. Prior to that, it was around $30,000. I just think that $20,000 is very low, and so I would urge the government: if you are genuinely there for small businesses in our nation and you want to see them thrive and you want to see them grow and employ more people and take on new technologies, then you need to look at the instant asset threshold limit and adjust it accordingly. Thank you. 18:15 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm really pleased to be rising to speak about a range of the elements in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024, and I'm going to work through them. First of all, I want to talk about the incentives in here for build-to-rent developments. We need to build more homes, and it goes without saying that we need to do it quickly, right across Australia, including in Macquarie. Our ambition is 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade, and the $32 billion in new commitments that we've made is aimed at stimulating construction in housing in a variety of ways—homes for buyers and homes for renters. One key element is homes that are built to rent. It's where developments are specifically designed to be rented out, rather than sold off to individual buyers. This is an underdeveloped market in Australia compared to other places, including the US and the UK. Currently, here it's been more focused on luxury housing, but we want to see it used to increase rental housing supply more broadly—including, and especially, in the area of affordable housing. These moves we're making are designed to supplement, not replace, other forms of rental housing with this build-to-rent element so that we are actually expanding the housing supply. For eligible new build-to-rent developments, there are a number of provisions that are in there. One is that we're reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments from managed investment trust investments to 15 per cent. This is to provide an incentive for those trusts to do this work. We're also increasing the depreciation rate for capital works in eligible projects to four per cent a year. That's up from 2.5 per cent—another incentive. While that might not sound earth-shattering, what we know is that they're the sorts of incentives that we need to get people to really look at this sector as an asset class and genuinely invest at scale. The way build-to-rent developments will work is that there has to be a minimum of 50 apartments or dwellings, with a minimum lease term of three years for each dwelling. So they are large developments, and they're big investments. The development must be held under single ownership for at least 15 years, and at least 10 per cent of the dwellings in new developments assisted by these measures must be tenanted on an affordable basis so that we're delivering a more long-term, affordable rental supply. The affordable dwellings must have their rent set at 74.9 per cent or less than the market rent of a comparable dwelling in the same project. For tenants to be eligible for affordable housing, their household income must be under the required income limits, which are set according to the composition of the household. The affordable dwellings are required to be comparable to the non-affordable dwellings, ensuring that affordable and non-affordable dwellings are of equal quality—because that's what people deserve. They have a right to have quality housing. These measures will apply from 1 July this year. This is yet another piece in the suite of programs and incentives that we're providing, because housing is a priority. Increasing the housing supply is a huge priority for us, and I am pleased to see that this aspect is covered in this bill. The second schedule of this legislation relates to buy-now pay-later. Buy-now pay-later is something that's actually been around since the 1800s, and back then Singer, the sewing machine company, established the 'a dollar down, a dollar a week' plan in order to buy your sewing machine. That's a little bit before my time, but I well remember lay-by. In the 1970s and 1980s I was a big fan of lay-by, and the way lay-by has moved to buy-now pay-later is the evolution to the 21st century. There's way more instant satisfaction in being able to take the goods with you, and unsurprisingly it's been a hit with Australians. We were early adopters of it, and in fact roughly 40 per cent of Australians have used buy-now pay-later, according to the latest data, and it's especially popular with younger people. But what we know is that it can lead people into some difficult situations, and a study a couple of years ago by Good Shepherd found that 73 per cent of financial counsellors said their clients had missed other payments, cut back on essentials or even gone without in order to pay and service their buy-now pay-later debt, and the risks of that impact are disproportionate for vulnerable Australians, including First Nations Australians and those who are struggling financially. Right now there is no regulation of buy-now pay-later under consumer laws, and, while other products like credit cards and personal loans are regulated under the credit act, that hasn't been the case for buy-now pay-later. Of course it's fantastic for small business to be able to offer the tool of buy-now pay-later, and so the regulatory framework that we're putting around it is designed to operate in a way that's flexible, adaptable and proportionate to the risk of consumer harm. The buy-now pay-later arrangements generally involve a third party providing the consumer finance to cover the goods and services, the buy-now pay-later providers paying the merchant the value of the purchase upfront and then those providers collect the repayments in instalments from consumers. That leads to some challenges because there can sometimes be poor product disclosure, inadequate dispute-resolution processes, excessive default fees and unaffordable lending practices. These proposed amendments will require buy-now pay-later providers to hold an Australian credit licence and comply with existing requirements under the credit act, including in relation to product disclosure, dispute resolution and hardship assistance. The buy-now pay-later providers will also be subject to responsible lending obligations. However, providers of products that meet strict fee caps, meaning that they're categorised as low-cost credit, will have the option to comply with a modified responsible-lending obligation framework that allows certain requirements to scale down in proportion to the risk of the product. We want to see people be able to access products and have a different form of credit—in fact a cheaper form of credit. That's what buy-now pay-later has done; it's really brought competition into that market in a lot of ways. But these changes will ensure that Australians can continue to enjoy those benefits while receiving appropriate protections. Another part of this piece of legislation is around multinational tax transparency. This is one element of a suite of things that we are doing to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax on the profits that they derive from Australians. There's an exposure draft out for legislation to implement the global and domestic minimum corporate tax rate of 15 per cent to make multinationals pay a fair share, and that also builds on legislation to stop multinationals claiming excessive debt deductions that see them reduce or avoid tax in Australia. But this part in this piece of legislation is around transparency. The bill ensures multinationals are held to account on their tax affairs by requiring large multinational enterprises with a material presence in Australia to publish certain tax information related to the jurisdictions in which they operate. This measure delivers on our election commitment to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax by enhancing transparency around those large multinationals operating here. We've listened to the feedback during the process of this legislation moving through parliament, and there have been some key changes based on stakeholder feedback to more appropriately balance the compliance burden associated with complying with these rules and to better align Australia's regime to existing public country-by-country reporting frameworks—things like delaying the start date by 12 months and introducing a materiality threshold to be subject to Australia's regime. That's a $10 million Australian sourced turnover. This bill is due to come into effect from 1 July, assuming it passes this place, and the changes, which have been welcomed by stakeholders, mean that our country-by-country reporting rules represent a significant step forward in global tax transparency by improving the quality and accessibility of tax information in the public domain while minimising unnecessary compliance burdens on reporting entities. It really builds on that global trend to help inform the public debate on the tax affairs of large multinationals. I want to make mention of one of the entities who will, as a result of this bill, be listed and eligible for DGR status, and that is the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, Australia. ICAN is a homegrown Australian organisation that has gone to the world and achieved a treaty that 70 nations have ratified and more have signed, to adopt the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It's an amazing organisation. I'm very proud to have worked with them. They rightly deserve the recognition that they have received, and I hope this supports the ongoing work they do so that we can achieve the objective of having a world that is free of nuclear weapons. The last part of the schedule that I'd like to refer to is the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small-business entities. What this does is extend by 12 months the ability of small businesses to access the $20,000 instant asset write-off. As a small-business person, I have certainly benefited by using instant asset write-offs in my business, buying small pieces of equipment or things that you can get an instant tax deduction for, rather than have it depreciate over many years. This will allow small businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million to be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 until 30 June 2025. It'll apply on a per asset basis so small business can buy multiple assets and be eligible for this tax write-off. This was something that Labor invented. We are the first government to bring this in, and it has been embraced by both sides of parliament. The assets costing $20,000 or more can continue to 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. So, for larger assets, there is still an ability to have some additional tax benefits in buying those. As a small business, coming up with the cash is often a challenge for reinvesting in your business, but I know being able to do it at the end of the financial year and get that asset write-off makes a real difference. We will continue to look for ways that we can support small business in the good times and the tough times. 18:29 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I come from a town called Charters Towers, which is under the Mining Act. There are about 12,000 people there, and it's an hour's drive away from Townsville, where the population is only 300,00 people. You could buy a piece of land there for $7,000. You just went in, made an application and handed in your survey. Within about half an hour, you could sell the block of land. Now, the land price was $7,000 for a vacant piece of land. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Order. I do apologise, Member for Kennedy. It being 6.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting day. The member for Kennedy will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed at a future date. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 97 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Nuclear Energy 97 18:30 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Last week, after more than two years working towards a prosperous, renewable and sustainable future in Australia, the coalition announced they want us to walk away from it and face instead a nuclear powered reality. The details of that reality, however, are nowhere to be found. Indeed, in the few short months we've been asked to consider the policy, the coalition has shifted from spruiking currently non-existent small modular nuclear reactors to now selling us on large-scale nuclear facilities. As questions have been put to them by businesses, industry leaders and people from across the community, their propositions have morphed, with the latest version suggesting that the sites they have identified will in fact house multiple nuclear facilities. As those words left the shadow minister 's mouth on the weekend, I found myself thinking, 'They are selling us a write-your-own-ending adventure book, and I for one am not buying it.' Nearly a week on, as question time in the House of Representatives has deteriorated into something akin to an argument with a toddler who simply wants something because someone else has it, we still have no clear understanding of the alternative future being proposed by the coalition. We do know five things about their plan. One, it will rely on nuclear energy to achieve our net zero ambition by 2050 even though we do not have, nor have we ever pursued, nuclear energy for our nation—not even during any one of the terms when the coalition held government. Two, their plan will not include a 2030 target, and a coalition government will walk away from our current 2030 commitments. Three, the plan has not been costed, and no-one seems to have any idea whether a generator will cost us $600 million or $60 billion. Four, the size and scope of the program are not known. Five, none of the seven communities currently identified as being potential sites were consulted in any way prior to the opposition's announcement. That, in a nutshell, is the coalition's alternative Australian energy future plan. To be clear: I do believe there is a role for nuclear energy to play in our global push towards a net zero emissions future. Nuclear energy is already part of the mix for several countries, particularly where other resources such as space, consistent sun and wind, access to critical minerals and hydro resources are limited. Many of the countries with existing nuclear energy industries made pivotal decisions many years ago, when the choice for low-cost renewable energy simply wasn't on the table. In Japan, for example, where there is limited land and the nuclear program has been operating under a heavily subsidised model for many years, it's worked. Similarly, in France and England, where the population spends a significant percentage of their year living through long, dark, cold nights or wading through thigh-deep snow, it has also been important, but none of those conditions apply in Australia. I want to be clear when I say I believe the opposition is selling us a red herring, seeking to drive division and disrupt the current economic transition. I believe that's completely irresponsible. I expected better of a group of people who for so long have told us they are the party for business and free-market principles. There is not a single piece of authenticated, independent modelling that supports the coalition's claim that pursuing a nuclear energy future would bring down energy prices. Indeed, without exception, the modelling tells us that to pursue nuclear is to condemn Australian households and businesses to ever-increasing energy costs as we continue to rely on ageing fossil fuel assets and drive away potential investors in large-scale, clean, green energy projects. As ordinary Australians, we are already paying the price for over a decade of inaction on the energy transition at a national level. After that decade, which was under the watch of the coalition, there seems to be no remorse and no sense of responsibility for where they've left us. Our current cost-of-living crisis is of their making. But, just like any other master of the shell game, they're hoping that our memories are short and our patience for reform will be weak. The truth is it's the coalition's inaction on emissions that has impacted our agricultural industry, our food security, our international reputation, our ability to attract international investment, our lack of local competence and, on a very personal level, the cost of running our households, including our insurance premiums. While I may sincerely wish it was otherwise, at this stage of our nation's development, nuclear energy makes no sense in Australia. The incredibly extended timelines for development, the significant and increasingly ballooning expenses, the skills gap, the legal and regulatory barriers and the fundamental weakness in social licence make it all untenable as an option for us. Ultimately, Australia would be starting from scratch and competing in a market that is already enjoying abundant, cheap and renewable energy. That is why the head of the International Energy Agency, who is actually a very strong proponent of nuclear energy, has urged Australia to prioritise solar and wind rather than nuclear. They have specifically called for discussions about the Australian energy mix to be, 'More factual, less emotional and political.' Had we already developed a nuclear energy industry at any point in time when the coalition was in government, this would be a very different conversation. But we didn't, they didn't, and they have never suggested it. In fact, it was a coalition Prime Minister who introduced our national ban on nuclear, so it's near impossible to see how these current calls are anything other than a cynical attempt to divide and forestall our nation. Don't just take my word for it; listen to the independent scientific advice, starting with the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator's GenCost report, which assesses the cost of different electricity sources. Solar and wind backed by energy storage, new transmission lines and other firming sources are the cheapest option. Their report found nuclear generation would be significantly more expensive for consumers, as it is quite simply one of the most expensive technologies available. They found that to engineer nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50 per cent more costly than deploying renewable technologies, and up to six times more expensive according to analysis recently prepared by construction and engineering experts Egis. At the same time, they concluded that the earliest deployment of large-scale nuclear would be in 2040, 16 years from now. That report was prepared independently, at arm's length from the government, by experts, including scientists and economists, and the findings were all based on consultation that occurred right across Australia. There is no equivalent report or evidence being provided by the coalition to support their case. For me, though, the most telling indicator is that there is not a single investor who is prepared to back this development. Rather, the coalition wants us, the people, to pay for something every other business minded individual and entity on the planet says we would be crazy to pursue. Nobody else wants to take the risk. Nobody else will even finance it or insure it. Add to that the fact that no government in this country has any sort of proven track record in building or managing an energy asset and I can't see where we go with this. Surely it's at this point in time that we need to tell the coalition, 'You've got to be dreaming.' This nuclear thought bubble is just plain bad. To top it all off, the coalition wants to scrap Australia's 2030 climate target because our current projections will only achieve—wait for it—42 per cent, rather than the 43 per cent we are striving for. To walk away from it would immediately stall current economic gains and would also send a really clear message to young Australians that the coalition is prepared to abdicate their responsibility to fix the mess that a decade of poor climate leadership from them has already created. It also sends a message that, unless you're guaranteed to hit something, you shouldn't shoot for it. When did they become the party that advocates that walking away from a commitment is an okay thing to do? Reneging on our 2030 target will result in higher energy bills for us all. It will result in the loss of thousands of future ready jobs, it will threaten our economy and it will ultimately lead to higher climate pollution because, quite simply, without it there is no aspiration and there is no need to do anything other than what we are currently doing—and, to be honest, I can't help but think that's exactly the position that the coalition wants us to take. Even the Australian Energy Council—who represent electricity companies and gas wholesalers and retailers—the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group all agree that maintaining the interim target of 43 per cent is an important step in getting to net zero emissions by mid-century. As a nation, we are already well on our way. We need to stay the course and get the job of transitioning our economy and further cutting our pollution done, for the health and wellbeing of our children. Forty per cent of our energy is already generated through solar and wind. In South Australia, it's 75 per cent of their energy. In WA, it's 36 per cent of their energy, with their regulators saying that, within the next year, it will be 100 per cent of their energy. There will be challenges as we navigate this transition. No ambitious economic reform agenda is ever without its challenges. But we've come so far. Our economy, our communities and our homes are already well on the way to a renewable and sustainable future. Let's just get on with the job. Veterans 98 18:41 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Changi is synonymous with suffering, but it's also synonymous with courage, resilience, defiance and survival. Last week, it was my great privilege to attend the Swansea RSL Sub Branch on the East Coast of my electorate and listen to a story about a flag. I do not exaggerate when I say the 30 minutes or so that I was there, standing with a group of RSL members and volunteers, was one of the most moving experiences of my life. I met Arthur Pegg, who had donated the flag—with a small Union Jack on it—to the Swansea RSL, in the hope that it might be displayed. But this isn't just any old flag. This small flag, unremarkable in itself and, no doubt, mass produced at the time, was in the possession of Frederick William Pegg, Arthur's father, who was a prisoner of war in Changi for more than three years during World War II. Fred was born in Somerset in Tasmania's north and spent his latter years in Campbell Town in the Northern Midlands, where Arthur grew up and spent his working life as a shearer, before retiring to the East Coast. Scrawled on the flag are 89 names and details—sometimes hometowns and sometimes service numbers—of Fred and his fellow POWs. In their own hand, they wrote their own names: BM Frost of Victoria Park, FH Keirle of Katanning, TW Montgomery of Ultimo, LR Parkes of Woy Woy and so many more, some hardly legible now. I stood there, rapt, thinking of what it must have been like for those men to put their names to that flag in those conditions. They were men in different phases of emaciation and suffering but who were resilient, strong and defiant enough to say: 'I am here. I live. I matter.' Of course, some of those who signed the flag would die in captivity, never to return home. The flag, with a couple of bullet holes in it and what looked like old bloodstains, sat there on a table in front of me at the RSL, laid out on tissue paper. I could have touched it but I knew I shouldn't, and I didn't. It was simply too precious an artefact. I'm not religious, but I felt reverence—not for the flag so much but for what it represented and for what those scrawled and scribbled names said to me across the years. Arthur says that if the Japanese had found the flag on his father he would have been shot. Fred kept it hidden throughout his captivity, and it remained in his possession until his death in Tasmania and its passing down to Arthur. Now getting on himself in years, Arthur weighed up whether to keep the flag in the family's possession and hand it to younger generations of the Pegg clan or bequeath it to the nation. I am so pleased and proud that Arthur decided on gifting the flag to the Swansea RSL. It is, with no exaggeration, a national treasure. I would like to acknowledge the Swansea RSL's Julie Orr, Noel Stanley, Neville and Suzanne Payne—for their tireless research—and president Bill Costin. There will, of course, be others that I've failed to mention. On behalf of the Swansea RSL, Bill submitted an application under the Australian government's Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program for a project that will appropriately protect the Pegg flag for generations to come. The application was approved in the most recent round, and it will fund professional framing and the flag's preservation in oxygen-free gas. It will be lit with lights that will not impair the ink or colours of the flag. The Pegg flag will have pride of place in the Swansea RSL, and I am sure it will be visited by family members of the British and Australian servicemen who were imprisoned at Changi. I very much look forward to the completion of this project and to seeing the framed flag displayed on the wall. As well as to the Pegg flag, saluting their service funding was awarded to other areas of my electorate too. Southern Midlands Council will receive $6,680 to install a plaque at the Melton Mowbray park to commemorate Lieutenant Colonel John Hutton Bisdee VC OBE. John Bisdee of the 1st Tasmanian Imperial Bushmen was in an eight-man mounted patrol that was ambushed during the Boer War. Bisdee hoisted an injured officer onto his own horse, and, despite having been wounded himself, he ran alongside, under fire, until he too could mount and escape. He also served as a light horse officer in the First World War, and, by 1918, he was a lieutenant colonel in the Anzac Provost Corps. Bisdee was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1919. He eventually returned to farming in Tasmania, where he died in 1930, and, of course, he was part of that very well-known Bisdee clan in the Southern Midlands. Kentish Council has received $10,000 to create and install a mural to commemorate locals who served during the First and Second World Wars. Northern Midlands RSL Sub Branch will receive $9,500 to enhance its memorial garden at the Longford Cenotaph. Sheffield RSL Sub Branch will receive $3,025 to refurbish its honour boards. Molesworth Primary School will install flagpoles and the associated landscape to host commemorative events. Meander Valley Council will receive $9,035 to construct a cenotaph to honour and remember Australia's service personnel. In May, the Albanese government announced that we are investing an additional $477 million to increase support to the more than 340,000 veterans and dependants who access services through the DVA. In the 2022-23 October budget, we invested more than $233.9 million to engage 500 new frontline staff at the DVA to eliminate the veteran compensation claims backlog that we inherited following the 2022 election. Last week, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh; and Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Julie Collins, launched the Veterans' Acute Housing Program. Funded by the Housing Australia Future Fund, this new $30 million program is intended to support veterans and their families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Across Lyons, the Australian government's Veteran Wellbeing Grants One-Off Program has invested more than $290,000 into a multipurpose education and training centre for veterans in Lake Sorell. I will say I'm very much looking forward to representing Minister Keogh and officially opening this new facility on his behalf next month. I'm sure I speak for every member when I say this: at the very least, our nation owes support to those who served, especially those who served in combat roles, when they return home to civilian life. For those that we have lost, we must ensure that their sacrifice is always remembered. Lest we forget. Wannon Electorate: Cost of Living, Wannon Electorate: Emergency Services, Victoria: Infrastructure 100 18:49 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to ask the federal government and the Victorian state government to look incredibly seriously at the extraordinarily dry conditions across south-west Victoria and across south-east South Australia. In many parts of western Victoria, south-west Victoria and south-east South Australia, we haven't had rain since January. Obviously, we're now in winter, and we have the makings of what is called a green drought. High interest rates have been added on top of the prices that farmers are now having to pay for fodder and the other cost-of-living issues that farmers are facing. We now need both state and federal governments to seriously look at providing some sort of relief to farmers in our region. I will be writing to both the federal government and the Victorian state government for them to look at this, because farmers are starting to do it really tough as a result of the fact that we haven't had serious rain in some parts since the middle of January. Brotherly love is a unique thing, and we have seen a great example of it recently—as a matter of fact, at Easter this year. Sam Bellman saved the life of his older brother, Ryan. He heard an unusual snoring coming from Ryan's room. He went in to investigate what was going on, tried to wake him and couldn't. The ambulance service triple 0 was called, and they asked the family to do CPR on Ryan while he was waiting for the ambulance to arrive. Their father tried but wasn't doing it successfully, so young Sam stepped in because he learned CPR at school. The ambulance and hospital officials said his ability to give CPR to his brother saved his life. So a big shout-out to Sam, and obviously Ryan will, no doubt, be doing all he can to show his appreciation for your life-saving work. Well done. Ambulance services right across Victoria and right across the country play an extraordinary role in protecting our citizens, keeping them safe and making sure they're there when they are most needed. Our paramedics do an extraordinary job. Paramedics in Victoria at the moment are calling for additional resources from the Victorian state government, and the paramedics in Hamilton came to my office seeking my help and assistance as they try to deal with an issue that they have for 13 hours throughout the night: there is only one ambulance service for the Southern Grampians region in and around Hamilton. What I agreed to do along with the paramedics was start a petition to help those paramedics in Hamilton get those additional resources to help them over the night shift. At the moment, if an ambulance is called out to a serious accident and then there is another accident or another need for paramedics, the only available ambulances or paramedics are 30 to 50 minutes away. What they would like to see are additional resources so there can be an additional crew on at night. Jim Falla is leading the petition. Jim has been in and around the service in Hamilton for many years, and I thank him and everyone else at the Hamilton ambulance service for the wonderful work that they do. I look forward to working with you and helping you get those extra resources at night that you so dearly need and that I know the community wants you to have. At the moment, infrastructure funding right across the nation is being cut. It's a time when we have never needed more investment in our roads and in our rail—most particularly in our roads. In Wannon, we've seen, sadly, much-needed road funding cut from our budget, and it means that, over the next three to four years, we're going to see less funding and we're also going to see blowouts in the time it's going to take for roads to be fixed. This is simply just not good enough. What I am doing, along with many other coalition members, is highlighting the need for us to get more infrastructure funding and much-needed road funding. We have begun a national road survey, and, for anyone in the wonderful electorate of Wannon who wants a particular road fixed, a particular intersection fixed or a particular part of any state or local government road fixed, please do the national survey because it will help me campaign for additional road funding for our region and it will mean that we can go to the Albanese Labor government and say: 'We've had enough of the cuts to road funding. We actually need additional investment in our roads.' I know there are particular roads that need addressing. We put additional funding in for the Henty Highway, and now we've seen that taken out. We put additional funding in for the Princes Highway, and now that has been taken out. We put money in for the Princes Highway between Port Fairy and Warrnambool, which was much needed, but it's been taken out by this government. Funding for the Blue Church intersection near Colac, which was very much needed, has sadly been taken out, and we're going to see delays which will not only cause damage to vehicles but also potentially risk people's safety as they travel these roads. Sadly we've seen the need for the use of the local helicopter, with three serious road accidents in south-west Victoria recently. Once again, to those paramedics who have been on the scene and been able to assist and help with those accidents, I give an incredibly big thankyou. But it's once again shown us the need to make sure that we're getting much more funding into our road network, not less. I say to the state government in particular: forget your silly folly of spending billions upon billions on the Suburban Rail Loop and think about the existing road infrastructure right across Victoria. Those billions that you are planning to spend on the Suburban Rail Loop are needed on your road network right across Wannon and right across Victoria. Even the Deputy Premier of Victoria has said to the Premier that the Suburban Rail Loop is a folly. It is not needed, and there are going to be huge blowouts in both costs and time. We need that funding for our local road network. I'm calling on the state government and the Albanese Labor government to make sure that we get that much-needed road funding. The last thing that I would like to mention is that we are starting to see the benefits of the coalition's investments into mobile phone towers in the electorate of Wannon, and we're starting to see those phone towers not only be erected but come online. It's going to be terrific for the people of Orford to have the benefits of the phone tower that has been erected at Orford. That small rural community will, thanks to the coalition's investment in mobile phone infrastructure, benefit from the wonders of having proper mobile phone reception, and my hope is we're going to see more of that coalition program's towers come on board in the near future. Labor Government 101 18:59 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen This evening I rise to talk about the changes coming in on 1 July and other measures that the government has implemented to help families with the cost of living. With successive budget surpluses, we are building a sustainable economic future for Australians while providing targeted support for those who need it. On 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will received a tax cut. Across our country, 13.6 million people will receive a tax cut. As we know, this provides a bigger tax cut, delivering meaningful cost-of-living relief to Middle Australia without adding inflationary pressures to the economy. This is keeping money in the pockets of hardworking Australians. The government's tax cuts, unlike the reforms proposed by the opposition, provide greater protection for low- and middle-income taxpayers from bracket creep and support the progressiveness of Australia's taxation system, with nurses, teachers and truckies earmarked as some of the occupations most likely to benefit. In our electorate of McEwen, 76,000 people will receive a tax cut. The average tax cut for taxpayers in McEwen will be $1,583. This is an extra $1,583 of relief in the pockets of members of our community who are working hard to make ends meet. Further tax relief is also seen in the Albanese Labor government's amendment to the Medicare levy low-income threshold for 2023-24. This will insure that more than one million low-income taxpayers continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy or pay a reduced levy rate. It's all part of a budget that is responsible in its relief for Australians. These much-needed tax cuts have been threatened to be taken away with the election of the LNP government, should they be elected, through their rollback schemes. Another way the government is providing cost relief is through energy bill support. We know that energy price rises have put pressure on small businesses and household budgets. From the 22 failed opposition energy policies that left a legacy of chaos in the energy sector to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, energy prices have been a burden on all Australians. That's why every household will receive a $300 rebate and around 1.5 million businesses will receive a $325 rebate. This energy bill relief will take the pressure off household bills, again providing effective cost-of-living relief to all Australians. This is practical energy assistance, unlike the far-fetched ideas that have been thrown around by those opposite. Their plan is a pie in the sky and off in the never-never. Our plan is concrete and flows into household pockets in six days time. Let's not forget this government has greenlit 54 renewable projects, which will power three million homes. We have also supported states to achieve 330,000 rooftop installations of solar this year alone. Rather than promoting half-baked proposals, the government is continuing to move swiftly to implement the energy infrastructure that was neglected for a decade, getting diverse and Australian-made energy input into the grid as soon as possible to alleviate the current pressures on the energy market. Everyone can be sure that this Labor government is being pragmatic and acting on evidence to provide sustainable and efficient energy infrastructure to support Australia's growing energy needs. We also consider the cost involved in doing this to be far cheaper than the cost of inaction, which we know will cause more serious weather conditions and more strain on Australian businesses, farmers and households. When it comes to Medicare, it has been the heart and soul of the Labor Party to provide the residents of McEwen and Australians across the country with cheaper medicines. The Albanese government is again easing the cost-of-living pressures by ensuring that your Medicare card and not your credit card determines what health care you can get. We are expanding the ways Australians can get mental health care under Medicare, with a $361 million dollar investment in mental health services. We're also indexing the rebates on common medical tests such as blood tests, which will keep these procedures bulk-billed. We are also expanding on our improvements to women's health, with higher Medicare rebates for seeing a gynaecologist for complex conditions like endometriosis, for revolutionary new medicine for breast cancer and for care from a midwife. Residents in McEwen have benefited and will continue to benefit from our commitment to delivering cheaper medicines. Since January 2023, residents in our communities have saved over $1.9 million and got over 160,000 cheaper scripts. As of June 2024, they've enjoyed the benefit of 30,000 60-day scripts, saving them and their GPs valuable time and energy. In addition, we are easing the pressure on household budgets by freezing the PBS co-payment and adding more medicines to the PBS. In addition, pensioners and concession cardholders, who do it extremely tough, also won't pay more than $7.70 for their PBS medications for the next five years. I certainly hope that the coalition will continue to support these sorts of measures. When it comes to education, the Albanese government is ensuring the future of aspirational Australians by building a better and fairer education system for everyone. This can be seen in our education policy, which provides $3 billion in relief to those with student debts. This relief comes in the form of capping the HELP indexation rate to the lower of the consumer price index or the wage price index. We also backdated this to 1 June 2023, when the indexation was severely affected by the inflation rate. Students felt like they were drowning in debt and many students were considering whether or not their degrees were worth it. We are rectifying that. In McEwen alone this change will support over 17,000 people with HELP debt. The changes will make tertiary education more accessible and open the door for more young Australians. Also, because we've permanently changed the way indexation is capped, it will mean that this will never happen again. The government understands the importance of higher education for upskilling our younger generations and providing opportunities for people to reskill. Another way we're providing cost-of-living relief for Australia students is by introducing the Commonwealth prac payment for teaching, social work and nursing students, including midwifery students. We're providing over $300 a week to around 68,000 higher education students and over 5,000 VET students who do mandatory prac as part of their degree. We know that there are skill shortages and we are doing what we can to help alleviate that problem. We are doing the same with housing. We understand that safe, affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of everyone in our community. It's a national shame that many Australians cannot find an affordable place to buy, but this government has been working very hard—against the odds in this parliament—and has introduced measures to change that, including a National Housing Accord that will support planning and zoning reforms, an investment of over $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years, which has been matched by states and territories. Federal funding of $2 billion through the Social Housing Accelerator will deliver 4,000 new social homes across Australia. These are so important, and we have a $500 million housing support program for initiatives to help kickstart housing supply, including connecting essential services and amenities, supporting new housing development and building planning capacity. The fund that we have put up—the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund—is the biggest investment to support social housing and affordable rental housing in more than a decade, and supports some 30,000 new homes. Further delays in the Greens passing these reforms through—despite stating they want ambitious reforms—is regrettable. We urge them to get out of the way. Veterans are so important in our community and I want to outline the additional support for Veterans Affairs in this budget. As noted by Shane Wright in the Sydney Morning Herald, on page 97 of the budget is a paragraph that needs to be read and understood by all Australians. It refers to the projected $6.5 billion going to veterans over the next five years, which is largely due to more claims being processed because of increased staffing levels, which will result in increased payments. What that means is that this government took to the election a plan to support our veterans—not just cheap talk, but actually a plan to do something. We know that in the previous government the member for Calare threatened to resign as veterans affairs minister unless money was allocated to the Defence Force because veterans were waiting up to a thousand days to have their claim heard—not actually paid, just heard. We have put on over 500 employees in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to reduce the waiting time for those claims and we're seeing the evidence of that. The member for Calare let the cat out of the bag when he said the former government thought there was no political advantage in veterans, so they didn't do anything to support the DVA. In conclusion, what I say to people is this: we know you're doing it tough but with this government you have a group of people who are prepared to stand side by side and support you when you need it. Cowper Electorate: Infrastructure 102 19:09 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'd like to start by recognising that many of the public think that a grievance speech is an epic rant or a whinge session about problems that we're all facing, so tonight I'm going to make a conscious effort not to use exaggeration but to stick to cold, hard facts. I'm not going to distort any data; I'm just going to talk about infrastructure in my electorate and what we have seen over the past two years in Cowper, on the mid-north coast. Obviously regional areas, including Cowper, need better roads, better access to communications and better access to housing. There are a number of other things I'd like to discuss, such as accessible and affordable health care and child care, but, as I said, I'm going to stick to infrastructure in the electorate. Let's take a look at the funding provided by this government for our critical roads projects in Cowper. It will be very quick, Deputy Speaker, because the fact is that there hasn't been one single new dollar since Labor came into power over two years ago. In fact, this government has actively taken away funding that was previously budgeted and promised. There was $5 million of fully costed and department approved funding that was promised to scope the best solution for the Oxley Highway at the Wrights Road and Lake Road intersections in Port Macquarie. The Oxley Highway is not only the access point to Port Macquarie from the M1; it's also, and most importantly, the access point to the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. It's also the access point to the education precincts. Every day we see accidents and near accidents at the hospital roundabout, and, concerningly, ambulances queuing in order to cross it safely. When seconds count, this simply isn't acceptable. Lives will be lost. The fact is it was a measly $5 million, but in the 90-day review, which ended up being 180 days, it was considered that this wasn't a nation-building project. It wasn't important enough for the people of Port Macquarie. It wasn't important enough for the doctors, the nurses and the staff who fight the Wrights Road traffic every single day. It wasn't good enough to ease the congestion and the danger at the intersection. Not important enough. In the words of the minister, it was 'not of national importance'—I'm quoting her; it's not exaggeration. To the people of Port Macquarie: you are not important enough for funding of $5 million, which has been stripped away. Then—and I'm glad the member for New England is here—there is Waterfall Way. Waterfall Way is a 62-kilometre stretch of road between the M1 and Dorrigo. It links Coffs Harbour plateau to the outlying townships and is so important to regional services in Coffs Harbour. But it's called 'Waterfall Way' for a reason: they get massive amounts of rain and are constantly subject to landslips that close the road for unscheduled and undetermined periods of time. In fact, it was closed for many months. When the member for New England was the Deputy Prime Minister, we sat in the room with the mayor, Steve Allen; and the then member for Oxley, Melinda Pavey, and we planned for an alternative route for people from Dorrigo to take their produce, to take their cattle or just to get to work down at the hospital in Coffs Harbour. That was costed at a measly $26 million. That has been put to this government, and we've heard crickets. They don't care about the people in Bellingen, and they don't care about the people in Dorrigo. There's no infrastructure going in for the road, the alternative route, to Waterfall Way. This therefore effects families, businesses and the constituents who live in Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Dorrigo. It is shameful that if you live outside of metropolitan areas, particularly in National Party seats, you are void of any funding from the Labor government. Then there's the Bellingen housing project. This is something I'm really proud of. When we were in government, we—with the Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution and the state member then, Melinda Pavey—obtained $5 million from the federal government and the state government, and the Freemasons chipped in with an aged-care facility that had been run down and was no longer being used. In the agreement, we were to put that money towards 42 one-bedroom units for women over 55 who were experiencing homelessness or escaping domestic violence—42 units. Five million dollars—it's a drop in the bucket. Because of delays and because of a 30 per cent increase in costs, we came back to this government and said: 'We need to alter the agreement. If we can't have additional funding of 30 per cent, then we're going to have to reduce the footprint to 21 units.' You would have thought that this government, which has been talking about providing housing for the most vulnerable people, would have said: 'How much do you want? How much is needed to create those additional 20 units?' But the answer was, 'No. There's no funding.' So, Minister, please don't sit there and tell me you care about vulnerable women or vulnerable people or housing for those less fortunate, when all that was required was another few million, to top up, to have another 20 units available for vulnerable women over 50 years old—because that's all it took. I think it was miserly and mean-spirited and it was because that place sits in a National Party seat. That is the exact reason that that has happened. Just before the election, $26 million was put aside for Southern Cross University in Coffs Harbour for stage 2 of their health precinct. That health precinct was going to be an operational—I'll use this phrase—health campus. They were going to train people—as they have done up in Lismore, in the member for Page's electorate—and they were going to have occupational therapists, physiotherapists, psychologists, speech therapists and other allied health students providing services for free to the community. In Lismore alone, in one year, they saw 48,000 clients. Forty-eight thousand clients—imagine the pressure that that would take off the services in Coffs Harbour. There, you can't get in to see a psychologist; you can't find an occupational therapist; you can't get in to see a speech therapist. Yet that funding, because it was in a National Party seat, was stripped away. So now we have waiting lists and waiting lists, for all these allied services that people are desperate for, because of politics. In summation, I don't believe anyone from the current government can dispute the facts listed here today. They're true. I ask the Labor government to stop gaslighting my community by telling them they've never been better off and that Labor cares about the regions. It simply isn't true. You're not fooling the people of regional Australia. They exist. Do your job. You must do better. Middle East, Energy 104 19:19 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Today I want to make a statement about what is happening in Gaza. Like so many others, I am saddened and horrified by the confronting images of war that I see. I want to reaffirm that, at a human level, every innocent life is equally valuable, regardless of where that person lives. I also affirm that international law matters and that all parties must abide by it. Peace with freedom and justice is the bedrock of my and Labor's attitude to the current conflict. I support a two-state solution, with Palestinians' and Israelis' right to self-government behind secure and recognised borders. Justice for one side cannot come at the expense of the other. That should remain our longer-term goal and must remain the basis upon which negotiations are conducted. Finally, in the short term there must be a ceasefire. With a ceasefire, innocent lives can be protected, and there can be a basis upon which meaningful engagement can occur. I believe that a ceasefire is possible if all hostages are released and if aid is reasonably allowed to enter Gaza. I also want to clarify my engagement with my community. As with all communities, there is a wide range of views, many of which are held very strongly. I speak with many across my community directly and often, including Muslim leaders, community organisations and individual constituents. In-person conversations and correspondence enable me to strongly convey the views of my community directly to the government at the highest levels. I can assure the House and my community that I know that those views are being considered seriously and compassionately. I'd also like to talk tonight about the latest opposition policy in relation to energy. This really isn't, though, a costed and well-thought-through policy as such. It's really a thought bubble that is an attempt to avoid the hard work necessary to get us to where we need to be, both in the medium term and by 2050. It's really about kicking the hard work down the road. One person who has summarised it well is Professor Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor at the School of Environment and Science at Griffith University, who says about Dutton's policy: His proposal for seven nuclear power stations is, at present, legally impossible, technically improbable, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible. Tony Wood, a well-respected commentator and program director at the Grattan Institute, says: Dutton's plan, for seven Commonwealth-owned nuclear plants across Australia, came with no costings or modelling attached. We don't know the price tag to build and operate the reactors. More importantly, we don't what the total system, with nuclear included, will look like or cost. I want to start with cost. We have a very reputable study from the CSIRO and AEMO, the GenCostreport, which clearly states: The LCOE cost range for variable renewables (solar PV and wind) with integration costs is the lowest of all new‐build technologies in 2023 and 2030. The most expensive is nuclear small modular reactors. John Quiggin, one of Australia's most respected economists, has said: … Dutton will come under pressure to reveal crucial details underpinning the Coalition's nuclear plan—most importantly, how much it will cost. Nothing announced by Dutton today changes the fact that nuclear energy is, according to reams of expert analysis, economically unfeasible in Australia. I repeat: John Quiggin is one of the most respected academic and policy economists in Australia. I will quote Tony Wood again, Program Director of Energy at the Grattan Institute, who has said: CSIRO research recently found that electricity produced by a large-scale nuclear plant in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than firmed renewable energy. He went on to say later in the same article, which appeared in the Conversation: It's the total system costs that matter when it comes to electricity prices, and ten gigawatts of nuclear would be a very small part of the mix. I also want to touch on the fact that, unfortunately, what this plan represents is a re-emergence of the climate wars—culture wars, one might say. What we're doing is re-creating uncertainty when it comes to what we need to see in this country, which is long-term investment. Here I'll go to somebody who is an expert in the sector itself, the CEO of AGL, Damien Nicks, who says: Policy certainty is important for companies like AGL and ongoing debate on the matter runs the risk of unnecessarily complicating the long-term investment decisions necessary for the energy transition. That is coming from an expert, a leader, in the industry itself. Vik Selvaraja, of Rio Tinto's energy and climate division, says nuclear: … is a very expensive source of energy. And … in Australia … we've got low cost wind and solar, and we were going to run with that. So here we have leaders in the industry saying that they had thought all of this debate was over. They had thought that we had gotten onto a trajectory, with a medium-term target and a legislated net zero—notwithstanding the attempts of the opposition to thwart the legislation of those. Now we are seeing uncertainty being added to the energy debate in a way that is most unhelpful. Even worse than all of that, in my opinion, is the fact that what is being proposed not only does not have the necessary costing and modelling underpinning it; it is totally unrealistic, in terms of being able to be delivered any time soon. Let's have a think about the details of what would need to occur in order for a nuclear plant to be operational. Tony Wood again says: … we do know the first nuclear plant, if it ever gets built, would not be operational for at least a decade—and even that is a very optimistic timeframe. What I'm going to argue here is that it's likely to be far more than a decade, and, if that's the case, then any nuclear plant that is likely to be built would be entering the grid at a point when we need to be almost at the point of having solved this problem, not just starting. Frank Calabria, the CEO of Origin, says that time, cost and compatibility will all be challenges, and AGL, which owns two of the sites that are included in the opposition's plans, says that nuclear energy is not a part of their plans. Let's step through some of the steps. Some in the opposition who have commented on the issue of delay in recent days have looked at optimistic construction timelines, added those to the current year and said, 'That's when we think it might be possible.' But so much would have to happen before we could even put a shovel in the ground. Let's think about regulatory arrangements. Let's imagine—and here's hoping this isn't a scenario that occurs, but let's imagine—that the opposition win the next election. It's highly unlikely that there'd be a simple composition in the Senate. Overturning the Commonwealth ban in the Commonwealth parliament is likely to be an extremely difficult and convoluted process, and many commentators have rightfully said that it's unlikely to happen at all. What about what would happen even if that occurred? Then it would be necessary to overturn state bans in every jurisdiction. Now, it is true that, in many circumstances, Commonwealth laws can overturn state laws. But it is often more nuanced and complicated than that. A number of constitutional experts have pointed to uncertainty in this realm and to the fact that it might be necessary, for example, to rely on the external affairs power—again, another source of uncertainty and delay. What about local consultation? The opposition claims that it's the party of state's rights and the party of subsidiarity—of pushing decisions down to the local level. Are they going to consult? How long will it take? There's no sign at all that, at just about any of these seven sites, the state or local communities are going to be supportive. What about technology? We're being told that many of these sites will be small modular nuclear reactors—a completely untested technology. What about the regulatory framework? This would be one of the most complicated regulatory challenges this parliament has faced. It will involve safety, technology and environmental site management. This will take years to get going. Then there's the project design, there's the funding, there's the financing, and then, of course, there's the actual construction. We see how construction can blow out for the simplest of transport and other infrastructure projects. Imagine the potential for blowouts. So this is really not an exercise in genuinely coming up with a well-modelled, realistic and costed project. This is about trying to delay the debate, distract from the debate and kick the can down the road, because those opposite don't want to do the hard work. The hard work is already being undertaken. They're trying to distract from that. Energy 105 19:29 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thought it was a grievance debate, so I've got a grievance, after hearing the member for Fraser. I've got a grievance, that you're putting your swindle factories—your so-called windfarms—all over our countryside. I've got a grievance, that you're painting our fields a photovoltaic black. I've got a grievance, that you're running transmission lines hell west and crooked through our country. I've got a grievance, that people in our area can't afford their power and, basically, are going cold in the middle of winter. I put to the member for Fraser: if you think these are such great ideas—these swindle factories, these photovoltaic fields of black—then put them in the seat of Fraser. Take one wind tower and put it up there. But, no; you want to pay for your virtue by inflicting the problem on us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30