﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-06-26</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 26 June 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Claydon</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Speaker, I present report No. 27 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 1 July and Thursday 4 July 2024. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 25 June 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 25 June 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 1 July and Thursday, 4 July 2024, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Monday 1 July 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (11.40 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Interactive Gambling Act 2001</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR R MITCHELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that on Monday, 1 July 2024, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's number one priority is to tackle the cost of living pressures facing Australians by ensuring they earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr R Mitchell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (12.30 pm to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS SHARKIE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the number of older people in Australia is anticipated to grow from 4.31 million people aged over 65 years in 2021 to 6.66 million by 2041 with the number of those aged over 85 years anticipated to grow 140 per cent from 534,000 to 1.28 million over that same timeframe;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) many older Australians report experiencing age discrimination, elder abuse, financial stress and homelessness;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) one in three people report experiencing age discrimination after turning 50, with employment-related and other forms of age discrimination reported including when accessing businesses and financial, and Government services such as My Aged Care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) 20 per cent of pensioners are considering going back to work but barriers in place to their doing so reportedly include dealing with government services including finding digitally-based Services Australia interfaces inaccessible;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) 94 per cent of older people are concerned about rising living costs in the long term, 26 per cent are extremely concerned, and 24 per cent of older people report an inability to access dental care due to its cost;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) Australia's homeless population is ageing, with the rate of homelessness growing by over 30 per cent between 2011 and 2016 for older women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) one in six older Australians reported experiencing elder abuse (psychological, neglect, financial, physical and/or sexual) in 2021, with higher rates among those experiencing poor health or social isolation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) many retirement village residents report poor transparency and lax consumer protections and calls have been made for a national review and harmonisation of regulation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to establish a portfolio and Minister for Older Australians to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) demonstrate the Government's commitment to older people during a time of demographic change in which Australians are expected to live longer lives, but with increased reliance on key services such as health and aged care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) act as a conduit between Government and the community to better engage with older people on matters which concern them, beyond aged care, and enable a whole of Government approach to policy-making for and with older Australians across multiple sectors and Government agencies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) ensure Government services are accessible and inclusive for all including those who may not have ease of digital access or may be experiencing hearing or vision loss;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) champion our older Australians and shift the narrative of older people as vulnerable and in need of support (a 'burden') to more positive aspects of ageing and the contribution older people make to the economy and society;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) work with older people and the sector to address key issues including age discrimination, elder abuse, social exclusion and isolation, homelessness, access to and cost of health care, and financial stress; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) reframe the current narrative to recognise that older people helped to build our nation and continue to represent some of our greatest assets, rather than promoting intergenerational competition or conflict.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Sharkie</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TAX CUTS: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr R Mitchell—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that on Monday, 1 July 2024, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's number one priority is to tackle the cost of living pressures facing Australians by ensuring they earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 BEEF CORRIDOR: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 24 June 2024</inline>) on the motion of Ms Landry—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the cattle industry within the Queensland 'Beef Corridor' road network consists of a quarter of Australia's cattle herd and makes an important contribution to the Queensland economy worth $2.7 billion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Beef Corridor, consisting of a 457 kilometre network of roads, serves as a crucial interconnected system for agricultural supply chains spanning from east to west;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) this infrastructure facilitates the seamless movement of premium beef throughout every stage of the production cycle;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) beef produced within the Beef Corridor road network is of world-class quality but is transported on dangerous sub-standard roads; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) in 2022, the former Government committed $400 million to make the crucial improvements to the Beef Corridor roads;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the Government for its reckless decision to delay the full funding amount of $400 million for the Beef Corridor road network upgrades and creating uncertainty around this critical road safety project; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to reinstate the original 2023-24 funding profile of $400 million back to the 2025-26 start date to ensure the much needed road upgrades can begin so the beef industry can deliver its high value product to market safely.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 ROAD SAFETY DATA: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 24 June 2024</inline>) on the motion of Mr Pasin—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 677 lives were lost on Australian roads in the six months to 31 December 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the second half of 2023 was the deadliest six months on Australian roads since 2010;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the data needed to understand Australia's worsening road toll is being collected by state and territory governments but is not consistent and not being shared;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) before the 2022 election, the federal Labor Party committed 'to cooperate with the states and territories to improve the timeliness and quality of road trauma data and look for opportunities to extract better quality road safety data from states and territories in return for funding of road projects'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government has failed to deliver on that promise; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to compel the states and territories to collect and share data relating to the quality of Australian roads, the causes of crashes, and the effectiveness of road safety measures as a condition of the $50 billion in federal road funding allocated over the next five years under the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that on Monday, 1 July 2024, 2.6 million low paid workers will receive a third consecutive pay rise; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's number one priority is to tackle the cost of living pressures facing Australians by ensuring they earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CHESTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) natural gas is a key pillar of the Australian economy which employs 80,000 people in the industry supply chain, largely in regional areas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) natural gas is connected to more than five million Australian homes and provided 42 per cent of the energy consumed by the Australian manufacturing sector in 2022;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) natural gas is essential to Australia achieving its net zero target by 2050;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Australia has a critical role in providing a reliable source of natural gas to trusted trading partners which rely on our supplies for energy security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) regional Australia has benefitted enormously from long-term investment in the natural gas sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) new natural gas supply is needed to meet energy demand and reduce emissions in Australia and overseas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) natural gas shortfalls will severely impact energy security and add to cost of living pressures; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the natural gas sector provided $17.1 billion in taxes, royalties and charges in 2023-24 allowing governments to invest in critical services and public infrastructure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urges the Government to take urgent action to provide policy certainty which allows the industry to bring on the new gas supply needed to address forecast shortfalls, ensure Australia's energy security, and rebuild investor confidence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chester</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS THWAITES: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that on Monday, 1 July 2024, every Australian household will receive $300 in energy bill relief and small businesses will receive $325 off their energy bills; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's number one priority is to tackle the cost of living pressures facing Australians by ensuring they earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Thwaites</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thursday 4 July 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (10 am to 12.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR CHANDLER-MATHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) only 1.3 per cent of public schools nationally receive their full schooling resource standard funding, while 98 per cent of private schools are currently overfunded;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in Queensland this year, public schools will be underfunded by $1.7 billion, which is approximately $3,000 per student;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) schools like Indooroopilly State High School, in the electoral division of Ryan, are so overcrowded that students do not go to the bathroom because the lines are so long; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) public schools should be genuinely free for all students; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to make public schools genuinely free and immediately lift funding to deliver 100 per cent of schooling resource standard funding to every public school in the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chandler-Mather</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR BURNS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia does not have enough homes and has not for a long time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government has committed to an ambitious housing reform agenda which will boost the supply of all housing, including more public and social housing, more affordable housing, more homes to rent, and more homes to buy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the $6.2 billion in new investment in the 2024-25 budget to build more homes more quickly, bringing the Government's new housing initiatives to $32 billion, which includes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) additional funding for the new $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness (including a doubling of Commonwealth homelessness funding to $400 million every year, matched by states and territories);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) directing $1 billion to Housing Australia towards crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children experiencing domestic violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) assisting nearly 1 million Australian households with the cost of rent by delivering $1.9 billion for the first back-to-back increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance in more than 30 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) providing up to $1.9 billion in concessional finance for community housing providers and other charities to support delivery of the 40,000 social and affordable homes under the Housing Australia Future Fund and National Housing Accord; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges the Government's ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Burns</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR TED O'BRIEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) every Australian deserves and should expect access to cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity, 24 hours a day, seven days a week;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the Government has broken its promise to reduce household energy bills by $275, with households instead paying some of the world's most expensive energy bills;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) in the past two years power bills have increased by up to $1,000 more than the Government promised;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the Australian Energy Market Operator has issued dire warnings about the state of Australia's gas market due to a lack of supply;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) 90 per cent of Australia's baseload energy will exit the grid by 2034 under this Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) baseload power stations should not be closed prematurely with no replacement ready to go;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) the Government is steamrolling regional communities in a desperate attempt to fulfill its all-eggs-in-one-basket 'renewables only' approach to meet its unachievable 82 per cent renewables target; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) the Opposition believes in a balanced energy mix including renewables, gas and as coal exits the grid, it should be replaced with zero-emissions nuclear energy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 25 June 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Ted O'Brien</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS TEMPLEMAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the 2024-25 budget provided significant new investment in Australia's arts and cultural sector, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) $115.2 million over four years to support the long-term financial sustainability of the national arts training organisations and $36.4 million of indexed and ongoing funding from 2028-29 (including the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Australian Film, Television and Radio School, NAISDA Dance College, Flying Fruit Fly Circus, Australian Ballet School, National Institute of Circus Arts, Australian National Academy of Music and the Australian Youth Orchestra);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) $14.5 million to support the production of Australian children's screen content, recognising the importance of Australian children seeing themselves reflected in the stories they watch;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) $9.3 million to expand and enhance the National Film and Sound Archive's capacity to digitise audio-visual materials at risk of irreversible degradation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) $5.2 million to expand and develop the Canberra Symphony Orchestra and Darwin Symphony Orchestra;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) these investments sustain the momentum that the national cultural policy, Revive has created in rebuilding Australia's cultural sector and safeguarding our cultural heritage; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the Government is delivering transformative new investment to the cultural sector after a decade of neglect and cuts by the previous Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 28 May 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Templeman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS WARE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Multiple Birth Awareness Week is observed each year from the third to the fourth Sunday of March;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this year, Multiple Birth Awareness Week was observed between 17 and 24 March 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) every year there are approximately 4,200 multiple births in Australia, making up 1.4 per cent of all births;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) multiples are more likely to face greater challenges in their early years, necessitating additional dedicated support; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Multiple Birth Allowance provided as part of Family Tax Benefit Part A is insufficient in recognition of these greater challenges and is only provided to families of higher order multiples;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to provide additional support to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) families with multiples; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the not-for-profit sector to assist with improved education and peer support; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges the tireless work of advocacy groups including the Australian Multiple Birth Association.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 May 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Ware</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26 June 2024</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7187" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7188" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7186" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7190" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7189" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7081" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7212" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. This bill has been brought forward only in response to public and political pressure concerning the disgraceful conduct of the CFMEU and John Setka. This bill is a complete reversal of the government's position and an abject admission of failure.</para>
<para>This bill would not have been necessary at all, had the Albanese Labor government not created the need for it by earlier in its term repealing provisions legislated by the previous coalition government under which constituent parts of a union can choose to demerge from that union. But, of course, one of the first things the Albanese Labor government did upon coming to government was to dance to the tune of the CFMEU and John Setka by legislating to repeal those provisions, which the coalition had wisely and presciently legislated when we were in government. We did that in the interests of Australian workers; we did that in the interests of, in particular, female workers; and we did that in the interests of law-abiding unions and union officials. By contrast, since coming to government the Albanese Labor government has failed Australian workers, it's failed female workers and it's failed law-abiding unions and union officials, and that is because this government does not govern in the interests of all Australians; this government is controlled by its union puppetmasters, and the biggest puppetmaster of all is John Setka.</para>
<para>This bill—which is being brought forward, we are told, in an urgent fashion—achieves precisely the same purpose as a similar bill that the Albanese Labor government voted against in just February of this year. The Albanese Labor government voted against that bill because they were dancing to the tune of the CFMEU and John Setka, as they have done consistently since coming to government. Let's just review this government's roll of shame when it comes to the way in which it has implemented the agenda required of it by the CFMEU and John Setka.</para>
<para>Firstly, we saw the Albanese Labor government abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, leaving the construction industry and more than 400,000 small businesses at the mercy of the militant CFMEU. What we've seen just in recent weeks is the way that the CFMEU chooses to deal with anybody who stands up to the lawlessness of that union. We've seen that in the disgraceful threats and menacing behaviour demonstrated against Stephen McBurney and the AFL. Mr McBurney has umpired over 400 AFL games as well as four grand finals, and the AFL has rightly stood by him and denounced the thuggish behaviour of John Setka and the CFMEU.</para>
<para>Now, what is the egregious act that led to Mr McBurney being targeted by the CFMEU? As Australian Building and Construction Commission commissioner, Mr McBurney presented evidence of CFMEU bullying, intimidation and thuggery to the courts. Was this some kind of politicised stunt, as the CFMEU would have you believe? The test of that is the seriousness with which the courts treated the evidence that was put before them, because, in 91 per cent of these cases, judges—independently appointed judges—saw fit to fine the CFMEU. These findings weren't made at the discretion of Mr McBurney; they were findings made by the independent courts after being presented with all the evidence. But the CFMEU did not like at all the fact that Mr McBurney did his job and exposed their illegal activities, and they did not like it at all when the union was fined millions of dollars for egregious breaches of the law.</para>
<para>Let's remind ourselves of what Mr Setka had to say in giving his reasons for the threats he issued to the AFL, demanding that they sack Mr McBurney. In quoting Mr Setka, I'm going to replace with the word 'flip' the word that he's very fond of using, but any intelligent observer, particularly anybody who's had the pleasure of listening to Mr Setka, will know exactly which word I'm referring to. Here's what Mr Setka said, in my slightly modified version: 'They just don't walk away from a role like that, cost the union millions of dollars and just think they can walk away into the flipping sunset. It doesn't work that way. This is the real world, we go after our enemies and he was our No. 1 enemy and we will pursue him until the ends of the earth.'</para>
<para>We saw just last year the previous mining division of the CFMMEU split off and form their own union because they were sick and tired of being blamed for the indefensible actions of the construction division—John Setka's construction division. Another division, the manufacturing division, has long sought to leave the CFMEU over the behaviour of senior CFMEU figures such as John Setka. But, on the orders of Mr Setka, the Albanese Labor government passed legislation earlier in its term to repeal provisions in the Fair Work Act that would have allowed the manufacturing division to leave the CFMEU.</para>
<para>The textile, clothing and footwear sector, which is mostly made up of women employees, has faced significant issues with the CFMEU. The toxic, male-dominated culture, with jokes about domestic violence and specific and repeated instances of violence and harassment by John Setka, has made the CFMEU office an unsafe place for these women. I want to acknowledge Senator Lambie in the other place, who has sought to address this issue. She introduced a private senator's bill which aimed to address these issues by allowing the manufacturing division to demerge from the CFMEU and, in turn, allow women union officials and women workers in the textile, clothing and footwear sector to no longer be put in a position where they were forced to be located in a workplace that was deeply unsafe. What response did we get from government ministers to the bill moved by Senator Lambie—ministers in a government which talks repeatedly about its firm commitment to women's safety? The response was as follows: 'We will not be supporting this bill.'</para>
<para>In February of this year, this government was against permitting a demerger by the manufacturing division of the union, but now, just a few short months later, suddenly the government is in favour of it. What has been the cause of this complete and abject reversal of position? Mr Setka and his militant CFMEU, in the last few weeks, have reminded Australians in a fashion so blindingly obvious that even this Prime Minister cannot pretend not to see it. That is why the coalition was right to legislate union demerger laws, as we did when in government, and why Labor was wrong to repeal them.</para>
<para>The response from this government to the continued bullying and thuggery by the CFMEU has been consistently underwhelming and impotent, and there can be no doubt in the mind of any objective observer that there are $4.3 million reasons for that impotence. $4.3 million is the amount that the CFMEU donated to the Australian Labor Party in the lead-up to the last election. It is remarkable how you can forget your stated principles for $4.3 million. It is remarkable how you can look away and not see things for $4.3 million. It is remarkable how you can pretend that something that you know is happening—something that is vile and objectionable—has not happened for $4.3 million. What we've seen from this Labor government, from this Labor Party, is that time and time again Labor will value union money over the rights of union members.</para>
<para>What is particularly shameful is that it is overwhelmingly women members in a division of the CFMEU, who were demonstrably frightened by the intimidation, the thuggery and the violence that characterised the operation of the construction division of the CFMEU, who are desperately seeking assistance, and this government, which says they are committed to women's safety, ignored their calls, closed their ears, closed their eyes, stood by and did nothing. It is amazing what $4.3 million will get in terms of behaviour—craven behaviour, weak behaviour from this Prime Minister and this government.</para>
<para>Now, what has the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the member for Watson, had to say about this. He has admitted that he's only acting now because of the attack on the AFL. It's not because of the suffering of the women in the textiles division. He said, 'That attack on the AFL really made the decision clear and made the timing immediate.'</para>
<para>Of course, he was completely silent as to why Labor reversed the coalition's legislation earlier in its term, creating this appalling situation. According to the member for Watson it would seem that, when the plight and suffering of women in the textiles division was brought to his attention as a consequence of the bill moved by Senator Lambie in the other place in February, it wasn't enough to 'make the decision clear'. It was apparently only once the AFL and government infrastructure money was at threat that suddenly the decision to allow the manufacturing division to demerge became quite clear to the member for Watson. He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're not going to have a situation where we have members in the manufacturing division compelled to be part of an organisation that they don't want to be part of.</para></quote>
<para>Apparently, we're not going to have that situation in June, but we were perfectly happy to have that situation in February. We were perfectly happy to have that situation earlier in the term of this government, when the member for Watson brought in legislation which overturned the provisions legislated by the coalition when we were in government guaranteeing divisions of unions the right to pursue a demerger process should they wish to do so.</para>
<para>The member for Watson seems to think the Australian people and the women of the manufacturing division are fools. The only reason the manufacturing division has been prevented from demerging by the militant CFMEU is because he would not let them. Now we've got the member for Watson exposed, on the one hand saying to the CFMEU, 'Don't worry; we won't let the manufacturing division leave,' and then turning around to the manufacturing division and saying that it's terrible and unacceptable that they're not allowed to leave. In his public comments, the member for Watson has effectively admitted that the government did not even care before the AFL came under attack. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's time to no longer say, let's just wait and see if they sort it out themselves.</para></quote>
<para>Was that seriously this government's solution when the women of the manufacturing division, who work in the textiles, clothing and footwear sector of the economy, were faced with physical fear, physical danger and physical intimidation at the hands of the thugs and brutes of the CFMEU. The government's solution was that they should 'sort it out themselves'. This is a disgrace from a Labor government who talk a big game when it comes to women's safety but have demonstrated that, for $4.3 million, they'll conveniently forget their principles. They'll conveniently turn their backs on—in this case—a group of workers who were women concerned about their physical safety.</para>
<para>Some may think I am exaggerating. Some may think I am making claims which are not substantiated by the facts. Let's just remind ourselves of the long track record of criminality, thuggery and indeed the abuse of women which has been shown consistently by the CFMEU. should explain to the House that, again, I'll follow my convention of using the word 'flip' in place of a word widely and commonly used by Mr Setka and other CFMEU officials. And I'll use the word 'cart' in substitution for another word which is regularly and frequently used by Mr Setka and CFMEU officials. In June 2019, it was reported that police analysis of Mr John Setka's phone activity revealed that, on one single evening in October 2019, he called a formal judicial officer who happened to be a woman—Anne Gooley. Twenty-five times—he sent her 45 text messages—he called her a 'weak flipping piece of shit', a 'treacherous Aussie flipping cart' and a 'flipping dog'. What about Darren and Michael Greenfield, two officials of the CFMEU charged in 2021 for allegedly accepting payments from the owner of a Chinese construction company in return for preferential treatment on building sites? Mr Setka told the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 100 per cent supports both Darren and Michael Greenfield, as they are the latest victims of the ongoing politically orchestrated attacks against union leaders …</para></quote>
<para>What else have we seen apart from this absolutely transparent support of somebody who is taking bribes? According to testimony given by the fair work building commission to a Senate committee, there was a pattern of harassment, threats, abuse and even assault on inspectors from the commission who were visiting building sites to ensure that industrial relations laws were being enforced. For example, a female inspector—and I point out to the House, again, a clear pattern of aggression, violence and bullying directed against women from the CFMEU—visiting the Barangaroo casino hotel construction site in Sydney was surrounded by 40 CFMEU members and called a 'flipping slut' on a loud hailer. Another inspector was cornered by a CFMEU member who told him, 'You're just about to have a heart attack'—and I'm going to use another code word—'You're shooting yellow, you piece of shoot'. So it's unsurprising that the commissioner of the building commission expressed serious concern for the safety of his officials at the hands of the thugs and bullies of the CFMEU.</para>
<para>Let's remind ourselves, members of the House, of the 2011 Melbourne markets case, in which the court imposed $250,000 in fines and awarded $190,000 in costs against the CFMEU after finding that the union had deliberately and illegally prevented work from going ahead on the new Melbourne market site in Epping, Victoria. Let's remember the long-running Grocon dispute which went to the Federal Court in March 2015. The judge described an incident in which John Setka and three thugs—three other thugs, I should say—shoved security firm manager Mr Smith into a Melbourne alleyway and proceeded to assault him both physically and verbally. The court's decision describes Mr Setka's acts of violence: 'pinned him to the wall', 'hurled abuse at him', 'knocked his helmet from his head' and, 'took turns to ram him into the wall'. Mr Smith protested that he was being held against his will, and Mr Setka threatened that he would 'shut him up permanently'.</para>
<para>There was another incident in which Mr Setka abused a worker at Grocon. He punched the windscreen of the van that worker was driving. He told that worker to remember his face, because he would come after him and told him that he hoped he would die from cancer. The worker was suffering from cancer at that time. Workers who wanted to get to that site had to be bussed in, given a special path in with the protection of police fencing and given special duties to hide from the verbal assaults hurled at them by CFMEU protesters who called them scabs, dogs, rats and worse, and hurled threats including, 'You will die', 'You're going to cop it' and 'I'm going to kill your family.' When police attempted to escort workers onto the site, union crowds blocked and punched their horses, egged on by John Setka, Shaun Reardon and Craig Johnston—officials of the CFMEU. And may I remind the House that the CFMEU is an organisation from which Prime Minister Albanese and the Australian Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations before the last election.</para>
<para>Then, of course, there was the case in the Federal Court in 2015 in which Justice Jessop fined the CFMEU $245,000 for intimidating a scaffolding company into hiring a shop steward. Justice Jessop had this to say about the CFMEU in his judgement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The case is devoid of any mitigating circumstances. The Union has shown no contrition, and has not cooperated with the regulator … there is no circumstance to which counsel could point as tending to exert a moderating influence upon the level of the penalty which the court would otherwise impose.</para></quote>
<para>Let me remind the House that the Australian Labor Party has accepted $4.3 million in donations from this organisation. For those who may be listening and are unable to see what's going on in the House, there's a small number of Labor members here, and their heads are down because they're ashamed. And they should be ashamed; they should be ashamed of accepting $4.3 million from this disgraceful criminal organisation. They should be ashamed of standing by and doing nothing while the CFMEU harassed, bullied and intimidated women around Australia.</para>
<para>It's worth reminding ourselves of some other conduct that we have seen from the CFMEU. In August 2016, CFMEU official Luke Collier was convicted of intimidating Commonwealth officials after he used a megaphone to blast out the song 'Who Let The Dogs Out' on a building site and implied that he had the personal information of those union officials. This was Luke Collier, an official of the CFMEU, from whom the Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations before the last election.</para>
<para>Alex Tadic, a CFMEU official, was found by the full Federal Court to have abused a WorkSafe inspector. They found he had called the WorkSafe inspector a 'flipping idiot' and 'pathetic' during a walk-through of a building site. Alex Tadic is an official of the CFMEU, an organisation from which the Australian Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations—and how those Labor Party members around this place have their heads down, because they know they have been complicit in the violence, the thuggery, the bullying of this disgraceful organisation.</para>
<para>The Federal Court found the CFMEU liable on another occasion for the conduct of Alex Tadic, who attended a construction site and repeatedly swore at the project manager, including saying, 'I am not dealing with a flipping pen pusher.' In December 2017 the Federal Court penalised the CFMEU $200,000 for the unlawful actions of its officials, which included a CFMEU official Joe Myles situating himself between a concrete truck and a concrete pump, preventing the pouring of the site. In handing down the penalty, Justice Tracey said the conduct was 'arrogant and dismissive of warnings given to them that they were acting unlawfully'. 'This was a case,' he said, 'that falls into a pattern of repeated disregard for the law'—repeated disregard for the law by an organisation notorious for its thuggishness, its bullying and its intimidation, its disgraceful violence and other conduct towards women, an organisation from which the Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations.</para>
<para>I say to the member for Hunter, I say to the member for Ballarat, I say to the member for Higgins: Why are you looking down? Why are you not engaging in this debate? Why aren't you standing up to defend this indefensible conduct from this organisation that you accepted $4.3 million in donations from? I say to the member for Greenway: Why is your head down? Why are you not standing up to defend this disgraceful crowd of thugs and bullies from whom you accepted $4.3 million in donations?</para>
<para>In October 2017 the CFMEU was fined $90,000 for unlawful conduct at the construction site to expand the Werribee shopping centre. Two non-union employees were told by Andrew Harris, the CFMEU delegate, 'You can't get on-site. If you're not financial, you are not getting on-site.' After one of the employees objected, he went on to say, 'So what, flip the union? Alright, that's good to know. Well, you are not getting inside. You can sit in the car.' This is the disgraceful bullying conduct of the CFMEU, this organisation from which the Australian Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations before the last election, this organisation whose tune the ALP has repeatedly danced to, including earlier in this term of government, legislating to repeal the provisions that the coalition had legislated which would allow constituent divisions of the CFMEU to demerge from the CFMEU because they were tired of being associated with the bullying, the thuggery, the intimidation and the disgraceful and repeated criminal conduct of the CFMEU.</para>
<para>And now—now—we see this craven backflip, not in response to complaints about personal safety of women workers in the manufacturing division but because Mr Setka has inconveniently made his thuggery so public by his attack on the AFL that even the member for Watson, one of the most assiduous implementers of the union agenda, has found it politically necessary to cravenly reverse the appalling and unjustified legislation that he passed earlier.</para>
<para>But it is no surprise that the member for Watson has also used his position as the Leader of the House to move the rest of this debate to the Federation Chamber, because he wants as little visibility, as little awareness, as little publicity as possible. He doesn't want to have to defend the disgraceful, thuggish, bullying, violent conduct of the CFMEU, as none of the Labor members in this place want to defend it—and, my goodness, aren't they looking down, aren't they looking away, pretending not to be here, because they know it's indefensible this $4.3 million accepted from this organisation of thugs and bullies and criminals.</para>
<para>They have been called out repeatedly by a series of judges. Independently appointed judges in the Federal Court have repeatedly said the CFMEU is breaching the law on a repeated basis and regards fines and other penalties as simply a cost of doing business. And this weak Prime Minister dances cravenly to the tune of the union movement, happy to accept $4.3 million in donations from this collection of violent bullies and thugs. What did this weak Prime Minister, when he was asked by journalists about John Setka's thuggery, say? He said, 'Don't question me on it because it will encourage him.' That does not give the Australian people a sense of hope and optimism that we have a strong leader who is prepared to stand up to bullies and thugs.</para>
<para>That's in contrast to Bob Hawke, who was prepared to take on earlier unions that showed such a disgraceful lack of respect for the law, earlier unions that were run by thugs and bullies. The contrast could not be starker between the leadership shown by Bob Hawke, when similar issues presented themselves under his prime ministership, and this craven Prime Minister dancing to the tune of the union movement.</para>
<para>The acceptance of $4.3 million in donations from an organisation which has repeatedly conducted itself egregiously is totally in opposition to the stated values and principles which Labor members in this place claim to uphold. Labor members in this place claim to be strong supporters, as they should be, as every parliamentarian should be, of the safety of women, but they have not put that principle into practice when it comes to dealing with the CFMEU. They've scuttled away; they've turned away. They've covered their ears; they've covered their eyes; they've pretended not to notice. It is amazing what you can pretend not to notice for $4.3 million.</para>
<para>The coalition, by contrast, will always stand up for freedom of association. We believe that workers should have the right to join a union; we believe that workers should have the right to leave a union as they see fit. In 2020, we legislated to ensure that workers who felt their union was not representing their interests could leave. We did this because we believe in the fundamental principle of freedom of association. We believe that unions should serve the interests of their members, not the other way round. But in response to the demands of the CFMEU, this Labor government reversed that legislation, and now they are having to cravenly backflip because Mr Setka's very public threatening of the AFL has made it impossible for them to look the other way.</para>
<para>Don't be fooled. There is nothing here that represents a fundamental change in the views and attitudes of the Australian Labor Party. They believe in serving the interests of union bosses like John Setka, not the interests of ordinary workers and certainly not the interests of the women of the textiles industry. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) upon being elected to Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the abolition of the ABCC has given the CFMEU effective control of the construction sector in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Fair Work Ombudsman has not brought a single action against the CFMEU since the ABCC was abolished;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the threats made by Mr John Setka against the Australian Football League (AFL) are completely unacceptable; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) reinstate the ABCC and to apologise to the Australian people for abolishing this body to appease the CFMEU in the hope of receiving further donations to the Australian Labor Party; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act to ensure that anyone convicted of more than 10 criminal offences cannot be appointed as an officer of a registered organisation".</para></quote>
<para>The coalition will continue to hold this government accountable for their failures and for letting down workers when they most needed support and protection.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7211" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to require the Australian Communications and Media Authority to establish and maintain an SMS sender ID register.</para>
<para>The bill gives direct effect to the government's decision to provide the ACMA with funding to establish and run a SMS sender ID register.</para>
<para>The register aims to protect consumers and brands by disrupting a specific type of SMS impersonation scam—where scammers send SMS sender IDs to imitate well-known brands such as banks, government agencies or retailers in order to deceive victims.</para>
<para>It's hard to imagine an Australian who has not received one of these text messages purporting to be from a bank or a toll road operator, for example. These fraudsters operate domestically and overseas and use sophisticated technologies to trick innocent Australians into divulging sensitive information in order to steal their money or personal information. The financial losses, psychological damage and general annoyance suffered is immense.</para>
<para>SMS is now the most frequently reported contact method for scams, and almost $27 million was lost to scams in 2023, as reported to Scamwatch. Of course, not all scam losses are reported, so the real cost is far greater.</para>
<para>The government has made significant progress in combatting scams. Data released by the ACCC in April 2024 indicates estimated scam losses were down 13.1 per cent in 2023 from 2022.</para>
<para>However, while losses have decreased and progress is being made, Australians are still losing too much. There is no 'silver bullet' to eliminate scam activity; scammers will invariably adapt and utilise new methods to contact would-be victims.</para>
<para>The formal creation of this register will bolster existing anti-scam measures. Once operational, this register is designed to:</para>
<list>decrease the frequency and impact of SMS impersonation scams on consumers;</list>
<list>increase protections for legitimate brands and agencies against bad actors impersonating them;</list>
<list>disrupt the business models for SMS impersonation scams;</list>
<list>restore public confidence in SMS as a communications channel; and</list>
<list>ultimately, make Australia a harder target for scam activity.</list>
<para>A pilot register has been operating since December 2023, which has generated valuable insights.</para>
<para>Whether the register will ultimately be a voluntary or mandatory model is yet to be determined and is notthe focus of this bill. That decision is scheduled for later this year. It will be informed by detailed costings and analysis as well as the two rounds of stakeholder and public consultation in 2023 and 2024.</para>
<para>Following that decision, corresponding rules will be made to bind the relevant parts of the industry to certain obligations. This mechanism does not feature in the bill and will be effected by existing powers in the Telecommunications Act 1997<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
<para>The main elements of the bill are:</para>
<list>A requirement for the ACMA or a contracted service provider (on its behalf) to establish the register; and a requirement for the ACMA or for a contracted service provider (on its behalf) to maintain all or some of the content of the register.</list>
<list>The register will be a register of sender identifications that have been accepted by the ACMA. The bill sets out a two-step registration process specifying how entities may apply to the ACMA for approval to register before applying to register one or more sender identifications.</list>
<list>The bill allows for a deferred commencement date that will commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within a period of six months beginning on the day the act receives the royal assent, they would commence on the day after the end of that period. This recognises that the ACMA will require time to finalise technical and operational aspects for the register which is likely to be a complex ICT solution platform together with instruments that must be prepared to complete the framework. Accordingly, this bill provides that the ACMA must establish the register 'as soon as practicable'. The bill defines what is meant by a sender identification and will also provide the Minister for Communications with the authority to determine, by legislative instrument, other communication services (beyond SMS and multimedia messaging service) which employ sender identifications that may be registered in the future and other things that may feature in a sender identification.</list>
<list>The essential elements for applications, refusal of applications, prevention of impersonation of sender identifications (or spoofing) and removal of entries from the register are explicitly embedded in the bill; however, new powers will be conferred on the ACMA to make determinations, by legislative instrument. These will set out further requirements for access to the register, and its administration and operation. The use of subordinate legislation to specify these requirements will be critical in allowing functional aspects of the register's operation to be adjusted over time to accommodate both changes in technology and services that may be part of the register in the future. It will also mean the ACMA can respond appropriately to changes in scammers' behaviour, while providing ongoing protection to legitimate entities and consumers.</list>
<list>The bill provides for hybrid decision-making, where decisions based solely on objective criteria can be made by computer programs arranged by the ACMA while decisions requiring evaluative judgments are required to be made by a human. The bill includes a number of measures to mitigate any risks associated with automated decisions—such as the power for the ACMA to substitute decisions and remove an entry from the register when necessary.</list>
<para>This government has made significant inroads combating telecommunications scams but is committed to doing more. This bill is the next formal step in creating a SMS sender ID register, which, once fully operational, will offer better protection for consumers and increase brand protection for legitimate businesses and entities using SMS sender identifications.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7213" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to support continued access to television broadcasting services in remote and regional Australia.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that all Australians have equitable access to media services and content, regardless of financial means or location. This includes through access to quality television broadcasting services.</para>
<para>Free-to-air broadcasting services keep Australians informed through news and current affairs and support the effective operation of our democratic institutions. They tell Australian stories with the creative sector, and provide a trusted source of entertainment for all Australians, including children. However, the sector faces significant headwinds, and these are most acute in remote and regional Australia. Operating in these markets has always been difficult, but the pressures have risen with the fragmentation of the advertising market and the growth of online services.</para>
<para>Commercial broadcasters are having to make some very hard decisions. In May 2024, the board of Mildura Digital Television—a commercial broadcasting licensee that provides Network Ten content to residents in Mildura—decided to cease operations from 1 July. This is a disappointing commercial decision that will leave audiences in Mildura without access to Network Ten content via broadcasting services. Audiences with an internet connection and internet-connected device will be able to access Ten content via the 10 Play app. While this is ultimately a commercial matter for the Board of Mildura Digital Television (and its shareholders Seven Network and WIN Television), the government will act to enable residents in Mildura to access Network Ten content via broadcasting.</para>
<para>Part 1 of the bill will make amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to ensure that viewers in Mildura will have the option of accessing the commercial television broadcasting services provided via the government funded viewer access satellite television—or VAST—service, should they choose to do so. The VAST service operates as a safety net, providing access to free-to-air commercial television broadcasting services for viewers in remote areas and those in other areas who cannot receive an adequate terrestrial signal for digital television services in the area in which they live.</para>
<para>There are existing provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act that enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority to declare an area to be 'service deficient' and therefore enable viewers in the affected area to get access to VAST. However, these provisions are out of date and not operating as intended. This means that, in Mildura, viewers will not be entitled to access VAST, even though a commercial television network (Mildura Digital Television) will cease to provide services from 1 July. This is a perverse outcome that is not consistent with the intent of the service deficiency provisions or the role of the VAST service as a safety net for access to free-to-air television broadcasting services.</para>
<para>The bill will address this anomaly by amending section 130ZH to enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority to declare an area to be service deficient where there has been a material reduction in the number of commercial television broadcasting services provided terrestrially in a given area.</para>
<para>Audiences that wish to continue to watch Network Ten content via broadcast television in Mildura will be able to do so as a result of these changes if and when a service deficiency declaration is made by the authority. By expanding access to VAST, the bill will ensure that viewers may have the opportunity to access VAST, should they wish to do so, in the circumstance where a commercial television network is no longer provided terrestrially in the relevant area.</para>
<para>Notwithstanding the challenges they are facing, remote and regional broadcasters are responding by finding new and innovative ways to provide their services. In April 2024, WIN Television 'consolidated' the broadcasting services it provides under the authority of two commercial television broadcasting licences onto a single set of transmitters in the South Australian licence areas of Mount Gambier/South East TV1 and Riverland TV1.</para>
<para>This is a positive development for industry and consumers. It would enable WIN to reduce the costs of its transmission network by operating fewer transmitters. Audiences in these markets will continue to receive the same suite of services, broadcast to the same areas. Over time, the use of a more efficient compression technique as part of this new arrangement would provide the opportunity for WIN Television to enhance the range and quality of services provided, while using less spectrum.</para>
<para>Despite these benefits, the current licensing framework is inflexible and doesn't permit this type of innovation. There is currently a strict requirement that a broadcaster must hold a single transmitter licence that authorises the provision of the service or services of a single broadcasting licence.</para>
<para>While this 'one-to-one' relationship remains appropriate in many cases, it is unlikely to be compatible with the transmission consolidation arrangement being pursued by some regional commercial television broadcasters. This creates a number of anomalous and unintended outcomes, potentially placing the broadcaster in breach of specific licence conditions and other regulatory obligations under the BSA, while also distorting the intended application of other provisions. This is despite the fact that the number of services being provided under the new consolidated transmission arrangements is the same as those previously provided.</para>
<para>The bill will address these issues by inserting a new section, 102AE, into the Radiocommunications Act, and making a range of related amendments to support its operation. This section will allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to declare that a specified transmitter licence is taken to authorise the operation of one or more radiocommunications transmitters for transmitting the services authorised under two or more broadcasting licences. The bill will also make related reforms to allow the authority to make rules to set the scope and application of this process and allow it to implement changes to television licence area plans that are consistent with consolidation declarations.</para>
<para>The Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 reflects the Albanese government's commitment to the provision of high-quality broadcasting services across Australia.</para>
<para>The bill responds to the developments in regional and remote television markets and supports audience access to commercial television broadcasting services. The bill does so directly, by expanding access to VAST, and indirectly, by enabling broadcasters to operate more efficiently in terms of the transmission of their services.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7209" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>International trade and investment is critical to the Australian economy, creating jobs and prosperity, and opening up opportunities for Australian businesses to expand and diversify globally.</para>
<para>This bill, the Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024, introduced together with the Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024, forms the next steps in the Albanese government's Simplified Trade System agenda, which makes trade faster, cheaper and easier.</para>
<para>These bills represent some sensible and overdue steps to modernise Australia's customs processes.</para>
<para>These bills will deliver reforms to simplify and support the digitalisation of border processes for both business and government, and improve the effectiveness of the Australian Border Force in protecting Australia's borders.</para>
<para>Many of these reforms will save business time and money, reducing regulatory burdens of complying with certain customs processes, and industry has been supportive of the proposed reforms.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill will also strengthen the customs licensing regime against threats of criminal infiltration and bolster the efforts of the Australian Border Force to ensure integrity in our supply chains.</para>
<para>It will align requirements across licence types, and close compliance gaps to enhance the integrity and security of Australia's borders.</para>
<para>There are over 450 licensed depots, 500 licensed warehouses, 400 airports, seaports and cargo terminals, 2,100 licensed brokers and numerous freight forwarders and cargo reporters currently being regulated.</para>
<para>Current legislative provisions for the management of these customs licences are complex, outdated and in some cases still paper based today. This puts additional burden and costs on the government to administer and for industry to comply.</para>
<para>The amendments to the Customs Act will, in particular:</para>
<para>a. modernise customs licence administration by allowing electronic communication methods;</para>
<para>b. streamline administration across depot, warehouse and broker licences;</para>
<para>c. strengthen the entry requirements to be eligible to hold a licence;</para>
<para>d. align and enhance powers to give directions in respect of depots and warehouses; and</para>
<para>e. strengthen the licensing regime by bolstering fit and proper checks of licensed entities.</para>
<para>The bill will strengthen the eligibility to hold and maintain a customs licence that ensures the integrity of goods under customs control.</para>
<para>As well as reducing the regulatory burden on businesses, the amendments in this bill will support an equal playing field for businesses. This bill will help ensure that businesses that comply with their obligations are not undercut by entities who seek to circumvent controls government controls.</para>
<para>The bill will also make consequential amendments to the AusCheck Act 2007 to, among other things, permit the disclosure of information to an officer of customs for a purpose under the Customs Act. This will allow disclosure of the information under the AusCheck Act with respect to the cancellation, refusal or suspension of a Maritime Security Identification Card or an Aviation Security Identification Card held by a person, bolstering the fit and proper assessment.</para>
<para>The bill is informed by the <inline font-style="italic">Review of </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">ustoms </inline><inline font-style="italic">l</inline><inline font-style="italic">icensing </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">egimes </inline><inline font-style="italic">f</inline><inline font-style="italic">inal </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport</inline> which was formally submitted to the Comptroller-General of Customs on 31 March 2017.</para>
<para>The report noted that the review's recommendations are intended, among other things, to strengthen and streamline the current licensing regimes, with the primary purpose of implementing savings and efficiencies for the department and industry.</para>
<para>The report also assessed that the focus on the integrity of the licensing regime would only grow in importance in the future and that strengthening the integrity of the system would better protect the community.</para>
<para>The Australian Border Force conducted further consultation with key industry stakeholders in 2023 and 2024 to introduce the proposed amendments outlined in the bills.</para>
<para>The Australian Border Force will continue to consult and support businesses with their transition to the changes, including through existing industry forums such as the National Committee for Trade Facilitation and its working groups.</para>
<para>The bill being introduced today will enhance the integrity of Australia's borders, which is vital for a prosperous, secure and safe Australia.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7210" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 will modernise, streamline and strengthen the calculation of depot licence charges in support of the Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024.</para>
<para>Alongside the primary changes to the Customs Act 1901, this bill will amend the Customs Licensing Charges Act 1997 to align the calculation of depot licence charges with that of warehouse licence charges.</para>
<para>Streamlining licence fee processes and aligning payment requirements between customs licence types will support businesses to be better equipped in complying with their obligations under customs legislation.</para>
<para>The alignment will enhance licence compliance by closing a loophole that has allowed licence holders not to pay their first renewal fee charge if the new depot licence was first granted between 1 April and 30 June in any given year.</para>
<para>This bill will amend the Charges Act to:</para>
<para>a. set the default annual cost of a licence at $4,000 where the licence comes into force on 1 July;</para>
<para>b. provide a formula based on a per diem value where the licence comes into force on a day in a financial year other than 1 July; and</para>
<para>c. set out the criteria where the renewal charge for a depot licence is by default $4,000 and only where the depot is licensed for a full period of 12 months and handles fewer than 300 transactions is the charge $1,500.</para>
<para>These amendments will support a level playing field for businesses by setting rules to ensure licence holders are not financially disadvantaged by the date on which their licence is granted.</para>
<para>Together with the Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill, this bill will modernise and strengthen the customs licensing regime, and has been consulted on widely with industry.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>17</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Ryan moving the following motion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Minister for the Environment yesterday approved Gina Reinhart's Atlas gas project until 2080, which will destroy koala habitat, exacerbate the climate crisis and ignores the IEA's warning that no new coal, oil and gas projects can be built in order to reach net zero by 2050;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the fact that since the Government came to office, 9 gas projects and 5 coal projects have been approved while ten oil and gas fields covering 46,758 square kilometres of ocean have been released by the Resources Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) insists that the Atlas approval decision be overturned.</para></quote>
<para>Just this morning here in Parliament House, I attended an important forum held by ACOSS introducing their blueprint framework for fair, fast and inclusive climate change action. Climate change is threatening our communities, the natural environment and the economy. In short, runaway climate change is threatening everyone and everything everywhere. This is an urgent crisis that needs to be dealt with now, and yet this government is actively exacerbating it. As Cassandra Goldie said this morning, climate change disproportionately impacts people and communities experiencing disadvantage, particularly when the transition to a clean economy is slow, inequitable and non-inclusive, which it is. That's notwithstanding the superficially concerned and fine words at the ACOSS forum this morning from the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy.</para>
<para>Stage 3 of Senex's Atlas project was yesterday approved by the environment minister. This Gina Rinehart-backed project will construct 151 coal seam gas wells in Central Queensland. It'll clear at least 360 hectares of koala habitat. This project will reportedly drain 6½ million litres of groundwater every day. That's catastrophic in this area, which has some of the most productive farmland in this nation. Farmland is literally sinking already because of these coal seam gas wells, as we know, and we know this well. Up to 700 water bores in Queensland are also affected by CSG drilling.</para>
<para>It's time for some truths in this narrative, and I want to put them on record here. This gas is not being used to shore up the energy grid. That's a blatant lie. The biggest domestic use of gas in Australia is by the gas industry themselves, who use it for their own operations. The vast majority of Australian gas—around 80 per cent—is being exported overseas to countries like Japan and Korea. Australians see next to no royalties or tax from it. And then—get this—Japan gets such a good deal on Australian gas that they're onselling it to other countries. They can do that because Japanese domestic LNG demand is actually falling. They're exporting more than they're importing. Then you've got this absurd situation where Japan is now a competitor with Australia in the overseas gas market, except it's with our gas. It's absolutely ridiculous.</para>
<para>Australians are getting taken for a ride by the gas industry. Indeed, they are being gaslit, and there are backers in both major parties. The government just loves this project so much they even gave it an exemption from their energy price caps. The urgency of this motion is clear: we're in a climate crisis, and this government is addicted to approving new coal and gas. The gas industry in particular has a stranglehold over the government. We saw this with the release of their gas strategy a few weeks ago, which locks in new gas past 2050. This government has just released a budget containing tens of billions in fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.5 billion in funding for the Middle Arm project, which is a gas export hub. That's $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to assist gas companies—who, again, pay almost no tax or royalties—to assist them to export Australian gas, which other countries are then onselling for a profit. Taxpayer money is going to benefit gas companies and is making the climate crisis worse.</para>
<para>Gas, of course, produces fugitive methane emissions that are 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It's not a safe fuel. Fugitive emissions are also, of course, very hard to keep track of, because they're gas. We really have no way to predict the effect, and we're expected to believe that gas is somehow a cleaner energy source. That's another untruth that this government is actively peddling. The climate crisis is as urgent as ever. The government knows it. The government know that every fossil fuel project they approve makes climate change worse, and yet they go ahead with it. They know it means more natural disasters, including floods and bushfires. Globally, the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003.</para>
<para>We in Queensland know that floods are happening more frequently, but underreported are also the effects of climate induced heatwaves. Places like Western Sydney will swelter through twice as many days above 35 degrees by 2050. That is just unsustainable. It's uninhabitable. The government's own data predicts over a thousand deaths each year in Australia's major cities—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth—by 2050. That's not a thousand deaths cumulatively; that's each year.</para>
<para>Disadvantaged people and elderly people are most vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves, and that's according to the government's own data. This goes to what ACOSS is begging for, and was begging for this morning, in this urgent emergency. ACOSS is at the front line of trying to help those who are worst affected by climate change. ACOSS says—these are their seven principles—please reduce emissions quickly; please promote good health and wellbeing; please promote human rights, fairness and equity; please promote inclusion and representation; please uphold First Nations rights to sovereignty and self-determination; please, we beg of you, government, ensure a fair employment transition; and please, we beg of you, promote ecological sustainability and nature repair.</para>
<para>The government knows that this is a problem. They know all of this and yet they still approve more coal and gas. Make it make sense.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a seconder. I second the motion. Our federal environment minister has just approved a Gina Rinehart backed, huge coal-seam-gas project in my home state. This project, the Senex Atlas stage 3 project, will clear 360 hectares of endangered koala habitat in inland Queensland for fracking. This project is expected to require the drainage of a whopping 6½ million litres of groundwater as the coal seams are depressurised every day. Let's not forget that the depressurisation of coal seams across Queensland's Western Downs is causing some of Australia's best farmland to sink. Lock the Gate said it best:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"Minister Plibersek is happy to pose for photos with cute and cuddly koalas one day and then approve the clearing of hundreds of hectares of koala habitat for new Gina Rinehart-backed coal seam gas developments the next … "</para></quote>
<para>Queensland communities are already incredibly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, yet we have the Labor government approving yet another polluting fossil fuel gas project, further exacerbating the climate crisis.</para>
<para>The overwhelming majority of Queensland's gas extraction is exported overseas, and the biggest domestic user of gas in Queensland is the gas industry itself. There would be no need for this project if the federal and state governments were managing existing gas fields in the national interest. This project is going to result in 151 coal seam gas wells and a 300 million litre CSG brine storage requirement. This is only going to make the boom-and-bust cycle of short-sighted gas development worse in the Queensland town of Miles. So here we go again: yet another fossil fuel approval from this Labor government. It's not the first, and it's abundantly clear it's not going to be the last.</para>
<para>How long can the Labor and Liberal parties continue to ignore the most basic of scientific facts. Approving new fossil fuel projects is bad for the environment, the climate and the future of our planet. April was the warmest month on record—the 11th month in a row of record global temperatures—and sea surface temperatures have been at a record high for over a year. The world's top scientists now believe that we're going to blow past the 1.5 degree target set by the Paris climate agreement, and here we have the Labor government willingly approving new fossil fuel projects, despite those warnings.</para>
<para>You don't have to look too far to see to why this is happening, though. We all know it, so we're going to say the quiet part out loud. Over the last decade, the fossil fuel industry has donated $13.7 million to the Labor and Liberal parties. You might be asking: why both? It's because it guarantees that this dirty industry has influence and power regardless of whether Labor or the Liberals win the election—and what a return on investment they get. This last budget continued to hand over billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuels at the expense of communities right across the country. Coal and gas say, 'Jump', and this government simply responds with, 'How high?' It is abundantly clear that you cannot trust either the LNP or Labor when it comes to protecting our environment. The LNP still don't really believe that climate change is even real; and then we have the Labor Party, which has the gall to tell us that they think it's real while they continue to approve new coal and gas wells. It's actually insulting!</para>
<para>This latest approval of 151 coal seam gas wells is the latest in a long, long line of this government ignoring science and ignoring every single person in this country asking for climate action, and it must be overturned.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is astounding! Usually, when we have a motion condemning the government, someone from the government comes and speaks in defence of what they've done. But, no, the government can't even come in here and bring itself to justify why it has just approved 151 new gas wells in the middle of a climate crisis. There's a reason that the government cannot bring themselves to come in here: they are utterly ashamed. Labor are utterly ashamed, and they should be. The environment minister has just approved a climate-destroying gas project to run until 2080. They told us we were meant to be at zero emissions at 2050, and Labor are approving coal and gas mines to run out to 2080.</para>
<para>When is the environment minister coming in here as this parliament moves to condemn her? The environment minister cannot even bring herself to come into the chamber and justify this climate-wrecking decision. I thought we had got rid of Scott Morrison and his gas led recovery, but what's becoming crystal clear by the day is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell Labor and Liberal apart on coal and gas. Labor pretends to care about the climate crisis and then they come into this place, with the power they've got, and approve new coal and gas mines running out to 2080. And they can't even bring themselves to come into the chamber to justify it. They should be ashamed, and they cannot hide from the Australian people their climate-destroying approval of coal and gas mines to run out to 2080.</para>
<para>This must be overturned—this must be overturned! If we're to give our kids any chance of a safer climate, we must stop approving new coal and gas mines. You cannot put the fire out while you're putting petrol on it. The first step to tackling a problem should be to stop making the problem worse. At a bare minimum, Labor should stop approving new coal and gas mines. This is a contemptible decision that the government can't even bring itself to defend. This motion should be passed and this terrible decision should be overturned.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I support this motion, because the announcement of this approval by the Minister for the Environment and Water yesterday is incredibly concerning and it's important that we debate this question.</para>
<para>I'd like to do a reality check for this parliament: 1.5 degrees is not a goal and it's not a target. In the words of the UN, it's a threshold beyond which great risk and consequences will occur. At the Paris Agreement in 2015, there was a reason that 1.5 was listed and agreed to as being an important threshold that we should not go past. But we're already fast approaching that threshold. We're already there at times. We know that gas is not the solution; we cannot afford more gas. Methane is a major aspect in global warming, and Australia has been called out for underreporting is annual greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 28 million tonnes by failing to record more than 80 per cent of emissions that leak during coal and gas production. This exacerbates the challenge of achieving government targets and makes it absolutely impossible to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees. These decisions made to extend a new gas project are made on the basis that it's going to be scope 3 emissions, not something we're going to have to deal with. But the reality is that we are all going to deal with it because it is all going to impact our warming.</para>
<para>Australia is knowingly underreporting its methane. It's failing to take action, misleading the international community and undermining our Paris Agreement. The government knows this. I've written to the minister for climate change. I've written to the Climate Change Authority. With every gas project you approve, you make that problem worse. We know we are underreporting and we know we are not measuring. There is a recommendation before the minister for climate change to make sure, under the NGER Act review, that we have proper monitoring and measuring of methane emissions, in particular fugitive emissions, but still we have seen no action. We can't keep approving these projects without addressing the emissions and what they're doing—their footprints.</para>
<para>For those that don't know—and this should not need repeating—methane emissions contribute approximately 25 per cent of the emissions of Australia, and methane captures 80 per cent more heat than CO2 in the first 20 years. So every gas project that is approved is fast-tracking climate change. We are fast-tracking global warming. That means you are putting your children at risk; you are putting your communities at risk. It is just incredible that we are still, in 2024, at a time with an opposition that is doing everything it can to counter climate action policy, to put forward every kind of denial, to delay anything feasible with ridiculous proposals. In the meantime, we have a government that is still approving coal and gas, that is approving projects well beyond where they're going to be needed.</para>
<para>We do not have a gas shortage in Australia. Let's be really clear for the Australian people. We have lots of gas but we are allowing companies to export it for great profit rather than prioritising domestic markets. We do not need more gas approvals. What we need are rules that ensure that gas in Australia stays in Australia and that we fast-track the transition for households off gas with electrification. These are simple measures. We can do it, but you need political will and, first and foremost, you need to come and be accountable for the decisions you make, like approving gas projects for Gina Rinehart. I always hear the coalition always talking about the renewables billionaires and saying, 'Where are our possible fossil fuel billionaires?' They're the ones here, getting the handouts and, yet again, getting more projects approved. So come and explain. We should debate it urgently. You cannot have a safe environment for our children and continue approving fossil fuel projects.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government has to make decisions in accordance with the facts, in accordance with the national environmental law. That's what happens on each and every project and that's what's happened right here. The government will continue to consider each project on a case-by-case basis under the law.</para>
<para>This project primarily contributes domestic gas supply to households and to Australian manufacturing, including for glass, for brick, for cement and for food packaging. The approval comes with conditions which protect nature, including strict limits on habitat loss. Under Labor, we've already seen a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy into our grid. We are ticking off renewable energy projects at record rates, outstripping coal and gas projects seven to one, and we have record numbers of renewable energy projects in the approval pipeline. The government has green-lit 54 renewable projects in just over two years, enough to power more than three million Australian homes. Those renewable energy projects will give us more electricity in the two years that we've been in office than the opposition leader's large nuclear reactors would hope to produce, if they were ever built.</para>
<para>If the Greens were anywhere near serious and if they were being pragmatic instead of standing up and protesting, they would have said more about the opposition leader's nuclear plan. We've had one tweet from the Leader of the Greens about nuclear energy. But, instead, we see things like this—the continual performative politics that we see over and over again from the Greens. It's not pragmatic. It's not dealing with the issues at hand; instead, it's more of this performative politics. We are serious about making changes to our energy transition, which why we green-lit 54 renewable energy projects, outstripping coal and gas seven to one. The facts speak for themselves. We have a government here doing more about climate action than ever before. In the last decade, we've seen nothing but delay and denial, agreed to by the Greens political party.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Melbourne is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On this side of the House, we believe in a pragmatic transition. You cannot do everything overnight but green-lighting 54 renewable energy projects means we on this side of the House are getting on with the job of helping Australians bring down emissions, making sure we are dealing with what we have in front of us, helping manufacturing businesses, helping small businesses in our community, and bringing down electricity prices for households by making sure we get more renewable energy into the grid.</para>
<para>This is a serious transition which calls for a serious and pragmatic approach and that's what you get when you get a Labor Party in government—a pragmatic approach—not one of delay and denial, not one that would see the lights turned off overnight, one that is pragmatic. That's what the Labor Party does and that's what we will continue to do with projects like this.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, with this new approval for another expansion of gas, I believe the government are abrogating their duty to future generations. It's an abrogation of their duty of care to future generations. This approval comes at the same time that the Senate just handed down its report on the duty of care to future generations. It is irresponsible in the extreme. We have had warnings; it couldn't be clearer. The science couldn't be clearer. It is utterly devastating that we are still yet to base our decisions on the science and what is happening, what we are facing ahead of us. We cannot ignore what we are facing. We all know what we are facing, and to say otherwise is just irresponsible.</para>
<para>We know the International Energy Agency, all the climate scientists, have said we must stop approving new coal and gas mining. We simply must stop if we want a future for our children and our grandchildren that is safe and secure. The minister talks about pragmatism; let me talk to you about pragmatism. What will we say to our children when they are facing recurrent extreme weather conditions, when they have no shelter, when Lismore floods again, when we have extreme droughts? Is that pragmatism to be again approving more gas mines? We here in this chamber all want the same thing: we want a safe and secure future for future generations of children. I believe we all stand for the same thing but we all know we have to abide by the science. It could not be clearer.</para>
<para>When the Safeguard Mechanism came in, it came in saying any new or expanded gas project had to be net zero from day one. That was a win, a good outcome, yet we saw it undermined with the government's sea dumping bill. Carbon capture and storage is an unproven technology, one that is not only unproven but probably we could say failed. It failed in Norway; it failed at the Gorgon gas mine. It is failed technology, so to approve new gas mines based on failed technology is utterly, utterly irresponsible for our future generations. This is locking in gas to 2080. We know we should not be approving any more now.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allocated for the debate has expired.</para>
<para>The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:28]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Goodenough)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>13</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Bandt, A. P. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>78</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Le, D.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>21</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7203" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night I was outlining the reasons why I'm opposing this bill and this ban. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the words of Bonnie Skinner, who is the chief executive officer of Sheep Producers Australia. She said in her submission to the inquiry looking at this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Government has a responsibility to ensure that no Australian is worse off or left behind. However, should this bill be passed, that is what will occur for thousands of Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Consultation on policy implementation has been done in a rushed and unprofessional manner that has left many producers feeling removed from a process that will impact their families, businesses and communities.</para></quote>
<para>Xavier Martin from New South Wales Farmers has also made some very telling statements, just as Ms Skinner has. Mr Martin says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… now they are switching off markets for farmers, and food for hungry people.</para></quote>
<para>He asks:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What's next and can we continue to feed and clothe the nation if the decision-making keeps deteriorating?</para></quote>
<para>I'll return to the words of Charlie Thomas from the National Farmers Federation in the NFF's submission to the inquiry. I think Mr Thomas makes some further, very valid and salient points. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea Bill will end a lot of things.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will end Australia's uplift of animal welfare standards in the Middle East.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It'll end the livelihoods of farmers, shearers, truckies, agents and stock handlers in WA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It'll end the strong trade and interpersonal ties Australia has developed in the Middle East as a trusted food security partner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In summary, it'll end the tremendous amount of good this industry creates, both here and abroad.</para></quote>
<para>Again, this is very telling evidence from one of our key agricultural organisations in this country.</para>
<para>But it's not just the big organisations in the agricultural sector which are opposed to this bill. I'll leave the last word to one of our own highly respected local farmers from the Calare electorate, from near Carcoar, George King. He said that live export is not just about the ships and the animals; it is about improving human welfare through affordable and accessible food. It's about education, sharing knowledge and building relationships that subsequently have a positive impacts on animal welfare. Australia has an obligation, as a good global citizen, to export food and best practices to our neighbours. Again, salient points from one of the local farming leaders.</para>
<para>I'll conclude with a couple of remarks about upcoming events. Many in this House will recall the highly successful—and, I would say, evocative—move by the member for Kennedy to get me to dress up as a pig to draw attention to the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 and to stop supermarkets' snouts in the trough. That was a bill put forward by the Independents. The major parties refused to support our bill when it was put into parliament. When the pigs and the member for Kennedy came to Orange, that earned the ire of the National Party. The member for Kennedy quite rightly put the senator who was interrupting our press conference back in his place.</para>
<para>This leads me to my next point—and this is breaking news: the Keep the Sheep delegation will be in parliament next week on Monday and Tuesday, seeking meaningful consultation. Over 61,000 people have signed the Keep the Sheep petition. I'm also reliably informed by the Keep the Sheep delegation that they actually have a mascot. The mascot is called Murray the Sheep. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but they've told me that, to Murray's many and growing circle of friends, it's pronounced 'Maaa-ree'. So Murray the Sheep could be making an appearance with the delegation—and here's where it gets interesting. I ask: what happens if Murray the Sheep bumps into Murray the agriculture minister? That could be very interesting. Members of the press gallery might want to keep an eye out for that one. Pencil that into your diaries: the Keep the Sheep delegation will be coming here on Monday and Tuesday next week. Murray the sheep could well be joining them, and it could be a very interesting couple of days. So I urge all members of this place to consult with the Keep The Sheep delegation; they want meaningful consultation. That will be very interesting to see.</para>
<para>The agriculture sector does an extraordinary amount of heavy lifting for our economy and also for our national prosperity. The ag sector and farmers around Australia oppose this ban and they oppose this bill, and that's why I'm opposing it too. I urge all members of this House to oppose it as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Calare. Our Murray the minister is grey, rather than Murray the sheep, which I think is white, so we'll be able to tell the difference, thank you very much. We have a 'Murray Grey', you see!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. Very good. I know that. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the member for Hunter.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. Succulent, juicy, tender, delicious, scrumptious—these are all words that I and many other meat lovers associate with the wonderful meat called lamb. But now there is a new word to add to this list: jobs—and there will be thousands of them.</para>
<para>You can't beat Australian lamb. We have the best in the world. We've known this for a long time, and now the rest of the world is catching up as well. But sometimes we can improve the way we do things, and sometimes making these improvements will benefit the entire industry. The live export of sheep is one area of industry that can be improved.</para>
<para>In April 2018, media outlets aired footage showing approximately 2,400 sheep dying from heat stress and overcrowded conditions on board the vessel <inline font-style="italic">Awassi Express</inline>. This made it clear that something needed to be done. That's just too much—and what a waste of great-tasting meat that is as well. Instead of these sheep dying humanely and being sold for consumption, they had to suffer in horrible conditions and became inconsumable. I wouldn't wish that sort of suffering or pain on anyone or anything, not even one of my favourite sources of meat.</para>
<para>I may be able to eat a fair sized meal, as you can tell by the size of me, but I'm happy to admit that I'm not able to eat $4.5 billion worth of lamb, which is the value of our lamb and mutton exports. That's a lot of roast dinners. Combine that with our $3.5 billion domestic retail market—some of which I may be responsible for consuming—and it's clear that this industry is extremely valuable to our economy. We would never do anything that puts this industry at risk. We are about creating jobs, not taking them away. Just because there is a better way that things can be done doesn't mean it has to be done at the expense of jobs and at the expense of the thriving lamb industry that we have here in Australia.</para>
<para>Changing the way we export our lamb does not have to change the fact that we reap huge economic rewards from this industry. In fact, it can bring opportunities for even more jobs to be created right here in Australia, which means the industry will grow to be even bigger than it already is today. So don't believe all the doomsday cries from those opposite. I think everyone will believe me when I say I love lamb as much as any of those opposite me right now. I appreciate and understand the importance of our lamb industry just as much as those opposite, but the difference is that I want to see it exported in a way which avoids sheep suffering, and I truly believe that this can be done and achieved in ways which bring even more benefits for the industry right here in Australia.</para>
<para>As a government we know that there needs to be a transition and it needs to be done in a way which does not come at the expense of the industry. We are committed to making sure that this transition is managed as smoothly as possible. We also want to make sure that we make the most of every opportunity for jobs that will arise because of this change. We expect that sector to adapt, which will see more sheepmeat processing in Australia. Value-adding can also increase farmgate returns. It keeps jobs right here in Australia, not overseas. It boosts regional development right here in Australia, not overseas. It's good for jobs, it's good for farmers and it's good for the industry. It's also good for the delicious-tasting sheep. I know this issue has two very passionate but different arguments, both in favour of and against banning live exports. Some want to stop it straightaway and others want it to continue. I understand both sides of this argument. I've met with many people and spoke about both sides of the argument with them.</para>
<para>The live sheep trade today is not what it once was. Live sheep exports by sea have already declined to just 10 per cent of what they were a couple of decades ago. It is currently a market returning $77 million a year. A $77 million a year market is still extremely valuable, but this just allows us to make those changes more smoothly without devastating this industry. The numbers show that the industry is booming. There is no need to worry about or fear for its future, but there are plenty of reasons to feel optimistic about growth that will continue to be created.</para>
<para>This decision hasn't been made lightly. The bill aligns with recommendations of an independent panel appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to consult with the stakeholders. The independent panel undertook extensive public consultation on how and when the phase-out could occur, including engaging with more than 2,000 people in person and considering 4,100 submissions and survey responses.</para>
<para>It's in the best interests of sheep and the industry to legislate a firm end date. We think this is best for producers, businesses and markets as it allows all stakeholders to make business decisions with a level of certainty and to work within clearly defined timeframes of the closure of this trade. If they know how and when this is going to happen, they can be prepared for changes and be in a strong position to make the most of new opportunities that will come in the preparation of the meat here on our shores—and these opportunities will come, there's no doubt about that. It's also important to remember that this ban isn't happening overnight. This bill will instate an absolute prohibition on the export of sheep by sea, but not until 1 May 2028. It should also be remembered that the bill only applies to export of live sheep by sea. It will not restrict live export of sheep by air or the live export of cattle.</para>
<para>We are not leaving those impacted in the dark. We aren't introducing this legislation and then walking away from the issue. The bill helps us to deliver a $107 million transition support package to help those affected by the phase out to be well-positioned, resilient and ready for when the trade ends in 2028. This support package will do this by assisting sheep producers and supply chains, increasing processing capability, enhancing demand for sheep products in Australia and overseas, and diversifying agrifood markets in the Middle East.</para>
<para>This transition away from live sheep exports will lead to an increase in domestic processing. This means one thing: jobs, and thousands of them. By processing our meat here, we will need more people on hand in businesses like abattoirs and businesses that deal in the transportation and packaging of lamb and meat. By not exporting live sheep, those jobs would have been done by someone overseas after receiving our shipment of sheep. We'll now be doing it right here in Australia, keeping more jobs on our shores right here in our country.</para>
<para>By phasing out live sheep exports our already glowing reputation about our lamb industry will only get better. The sheep being consumed by international customers will be of higher quality because the sheep will be in better condition, having avoided the crammed, hot and stressful environment of being exported on the ship alive. A happy sheep equals a great-tasting meat! We will stand with the industry and we'll be here to offer support to anyone who is impacted every step of the way, making sure there are no losers as we move towards a better way to export our sheep. There is a lot of time between now and 2028, when the ban comes into full effect, and we'll make sure that we work with everyone who we need to in making sure this transition is as seamless as possible.</para>
<para>Our agriculture trade is a vital part of the Australian industry, there is no doubt about that. But the reality is that we must do more things in the Australian way—in the humane way—and we must exercise our humanity when conducting our business. Live sheep exports simply cannot provide that and cannot comply with that. That's what we have committed to at successive elections, so it should come as no surprise of those opposite that this was always going to happen once Labor were in government. We said it and it has been an election commitment, so this is definitely no surprise. As I said at the start of these remarks, even members of the Liberal Party themselves—even the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party—have thought it was time to phase out live sheep exports. That's why she introduced a private member's bill on it. But it's like what often happens from those opposite: they say a lot, but then when push comes to shove, they're not willing to follow through on what they apparently stand for.</para>
<para>We will do what's right, while ensuring that the jobs and livelihoods that are impacted are supported within this process. We've allowed time to be able support those who are no doubt facing a difficult time in this transition. I take no joy in knowing that there will be people affected by this; we don't shy away from that. But it does mean an end to a practice that, frankly, has been unacceptable for far too long. There have been too many awful instances of animal cruelty and they'll all come to an end. We will transition away from live sheep exports and there are better ways that can be taken advantage of.</para>
<para>We will do this through an orderly transition process. The Australian people have made clear that they expect their government to uphold the standards of animal welfare. We don't need the live sheep export trade; it has been shrinking, it has had too many chances to repair itself and it hasn't done that. This bill will bring an end to live sheep export. It's an important reform, and one that we committed to for the last two elections, just as we said we would. So the Labor government are introducing this bill. There's a lot to gain for the whole industry if we do this properly. This bill gives every opportunity to get this right for jobs, for farmers and for Australians.</para>
<para>Everyone has heard the phrase 'Get some pork on your fork', but I say, 'Feed the fam some lamb', because this industry isn't going anywhere and I reckon that the jobs are about to boom. This bill is good for industry, good for jobs and good for the delicious-tasting sheep. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker Freelander, I ask you and all those in this place to cast your minds back to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a grim time, and something that shook the nation. It was something that took us by complete surprise; something that hit us from the side. Suddenly, families went to the supermarkets or to town in a panic. They didn't go to buy a new car, or a new iPhone, or a new coat or a new pair of jeans. They didn't buy gold or other precious metals. Instead, they went to the supermarkets and bought food. When push came to shove, when the pressure really came on—and it was a life-or-death situation at the time—people resorted to buying food as a first priority. And that priority should be maintained as a paradigm and a pillar for our thinking as we move forward. The food production of this country is a sovereign risk, and it's something that we must look at, first and foremost, if we are to preserve the security and the food security of our nation.</para>
<para>Dwight D Eisenhower once said that farming looks very easy when your plough is a pen and you're a thousand miles from a cornfield, and I think that summarises and underpins the decision when we start looking at the export control amendments around live sheep exports. People in Canberra, people who have no idea about the agricultural sector and bureaucrats that do not understand what it's like to run an agricultural operation are posing implications onto the agricultural sector which they cannot possibly deal with.</para>
<para>As a farmer from Tasmania, I'm somewhat removed from the process of exporting live sheep, but the process of exporting and moving cattle and sheep by sea isn't removed from the great state of Tasmania. In fact, last year we moved 834,000 fat lambs out of my port in Burnie in the electorate of Braddon for the Coles and Woolworths slaughter job in Victoria. You might ask yourself: With that amount of lambs, why shouldn't Tasmania have their own abattoir? Why wouldn't they have their own meat processing in the state of Tasmania? The answer to that, when we start looking from an agricultural perspective—from those that know the business—is that if we were to build an abattoir that was capable of dealing with that amount of animals then they would probably kill that amount of animals in two months. What are the slaughtermen and all the process workers going to do for the remaining 10 months of the year? It isn't economically viable. It isn't viable to sustain that level over the full 12 months, and that's why the movement of those live animals out of Burnie into Victoria is absolutely necessary and is crucial to the maintenance of that industry in Tasmania.</para>
<para>When it comes to the standards that are required to move those animals from A to B via a ship, it's the most regulated industry that I've ever come across. The rules, the regulations and the compliance that are involved with moving a live animal are enormous. I visited Wagin in Western Australia last year and I listened to farmers. I listened to the honesty in their voices when they said they had complied with every direction that had ever been given to them—every rule, every regulation in relation to the export of live sheep, they had complied with. They have done their due diligence and they have been responsible stewards of that industry. They've done themselves a proud justice of maintaining all of those protocols. What do we do in return? We shut their industry down.</para>
<para>Farming is about mitigating risk. Farming is a multilayered pursuit whereby it's not simply one thing one day and the same thing the next day. There are a number of moving parts, and it's all dependent on a number of issues. Farmers have to deal with climatic conditions and with climate variability. When you start talking animals, there are a thousand things that can kill them; a farmer's job is to make sure they don't. A farmer's job is to make sure that they look after their animals. I know that I care for my animals deeply, as I do of my own children, and I cannot bear to see them in any suffering whatsoever. But, when it comes to external forces like bureaucratic decisions that come out of Hobart, that come out of Canberra and that come out of the cities, that is an external force, an external influence that farmers simply cannot deal with. It comes from the side and it has no relationship whatsoever to the nature of farming and the fact that a farmer deals with nature every single day of his or her life. And that's the difficult thing. It gets back to that quote that I used earlier: 'Farming looks very easy when your plough is a pencil, and you are a thousand miles away from a cornfield.' And I think there's something in that.</para>
<para>The deepening divide between urban and rural is another issue that I want to discuss briefly. The people in the cities and the towns, those people I talked about earlier, who, during the COVID outbreak, rushed to the supermarket and stocked up on food—I doubt very much whether any of them, when they were ransacking those shelves, gave any consideration or thought for the farmer that put the food there. That is where we need to get back to.</para>
<para>I see that the shadow minister for energy and emissions reduction has just come into the chamber. When he starts talking about the 280,000 kilometres of poles and wires that are going to go around, linking our intermittent power sources up to the grid, they're not going to be going through the bush; they are going to be going across the path of least resistance, and the path of least resistance in most cases is a prime agricultural land. And I'm here to tell you today that we have very little of it, and it is precious. It is precious to that vital food security and sovereignty issue I talked about—that security of producing food to feed our people first. If we cannot feed ourselves then we will not survive. And it's not until push comes to shove that we start to even consider this.</para>
<para>Our WA farmers have borne enough. As I said, they've complied with every direction given to them over many years. This has been going on since the sixties. I've been on those ships. I've visited them. I've had tours on them, and the conditions onboard those ships are impeccable. I was surprised and shocked at the thought that has gone into, and the protocols that surround, the transportation of live animals by sea. They are more likely to die in the paddock than they are on that vessel, on that voyage. They are more likely to die of natural causes than they are to die on board a ship. And if they do then the regime, as far as compliance is concerned, is immeasurable; it's out of control.</para>
<para>My point is that this is a very regulated industry. It is world's best practice. Farmers care very deeply about their animals. At the end of the day, if we don't produce the very best animal, and if we don't get that animal to the place of sale in the very best of conditions, then that isn't going to do our bottom line any good. So it's in our best interest to look after our animals. As a farmer myself, I understand that if I don't look after my land then I'll have no land to make a living on and my next generation won't have a farm to make a living on. We understand that intimately.</para>
<para>The next point I want to make is that of the thin end of the wedge, as I call it. We might talk today about the removal from WA of live sheep export to the Middle East. Where does that stop and when does that start? When does the Labor government intend to knock off? Where is their limit of exploitation? We started talking about the movement of cattle—and I know that's slightly removed, but we are on a similar train of thought here. If they're going to stop live sheep export out of WA, what's going to be next? The stopping of live cattle, <inline font-style="italic">Bos indicus</inline> cattle, out of Darwin into the Indonesian market? Some 600,000 animals go to that market. Is it going to stop there?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Deputy Speaker. Is it going to stop there?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Lawrence</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Only if you repeal it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Member for Hasluck! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. You may not agree with him, but he's entitled to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Deputy Speaker. In fact, that's the way it works: they have a turn, and we have a turn.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've worked that out. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The other issue I want to raise is the amount of cattle that we move out of Tasmania. I've got King Island in my electorate. There are about 93,600 head of cattle on King Island, and it's in drought at the moment. Those farmers are pressured. They've got to get animals off that island, and the only way off that island is via boat—live cattle on a ship. That's another thing: 26,000 head of cattle are transported 63 nautical miles from the Grassy port on King Island to the port of Stanley, and then they're slaughtered by Greenham & Sons as the Cape Grim Beef brand at their Smithton facility. It's done in the most professional world's best practice methods. The other market that exists in Tasmania is the JBS market at Longford. As well that, we're always sending stall cattle to the mainland and buying cattle in. The movement of cattle is immense, and it happens all over the country. I have quite a lot to do with the livestock industry and the movement of animals through the livestock carters' association, and the world's best practice that they have to provide and employ in their business is incredible. They care very deeply as well about the professionalism of their industry and getting their animals from A to B in the best possible conditions. Again, where is this going to end?</para>
<para>Never once have I heard of a farmer saying: 'I think there are too many coffee shops in that street in Sydney. I don't like that car park in inner Melbourne. I don't really like it there.' You never hear that. You never hear a farmer grabbing his or her mates together and forming a protest around whether or not we should have a park in the city. Farmers don't stick their noses into the business of others. It's a bit like you, Deputy Speaker, maintaining the control of both sides of this House. You control one side, and you control the other side, and you do it well, Deputy Speaker. You bring order to the House. All I'm saying is that we need order in this argument. We need the same respect and the same manners given to those on the other side. Why should city folk so far removed from the rural agricultural sector interfere with them? That's the point I'm making, and I want to make it strongly.</para>
<para>Finally, the friends who I met along the way in Wagin in WA last year—they were decent, honest, authentic and genuine folk who genuinely want the best for their industry—have had to leave their farms and come all the way to Canberra on a program called Keep the Sheep. They'll be here on Monday, and I urge everybody, whether you're from the bush or from the city, to get behind these folk, because this is their livelihood. This is their future. This is not only the future of their operation and their children's operation; it also provides food security and sovereignty to our nation. On Monday, Keep the Sheep are in Canberra; get behind them.</para>
<para>I want to leave you with the thought that if we don't start prioritising our food and supporting our farmers—getting behind our farmers and allowing them the latitude to go about their business—then we won't have an agricultural sector. We are biting the hand that feeds us. Eventually, that hand will bite back.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. Change is tough. It brings uncertainty, anxiety and fear. Farmers are living and working in an environment that is in a constant state of change—the weather, the market, the rules and the price. There is so little that farmers have control over. They rely on good farming practices, discipline to rise out of bed before dawn, skills to fix and repair, and relationships to see their mates and families through the tough times and the great. I'm not saying this from a theoretical perspective. I am saying it from a lived experience—from my grandparents settling on country in Carnamah and Cadoux in the WA Wheatbelt, to my sister building on the success of generations with her husband and family on their farm in York. York is where I grew up. It's a beautiful farming community representing so much and responsible for so much of our cereal crops—wheat, barley and oats—and grazing sheep for meat, of course, but particularly for their merino wool.</para>
<para>I've seen firsthand the toll that farming takes on farmers, families and towns when things out of their control are difficult. I've also seen how those same communities are resilient and rise to every challenge, adopting new technologies, new genetics and new advances in agronomics to create more food and more wealth not just for those living in these small towns but for those in our cities, our state and nations abroad. So when I was asked to temporarily cover for my colleague and great friend the member for Gilmore on the House Standing Committee on Agriculture to inquire into the banning of the live sheep trade, I willingly took up the opportunity because I knew the change being proposed in this bill could be tough without understanding the impact and consequences. Change needs to come, but we need to ensure that farmers are best positioned to not just deal with the change but come out stronger for it.</para>
<para>Western Australia has 18 per cent of Australia's sheep flock, or around 12.6 million sheep, and last year Western Australia exported fewer than 600,000 of those animals live—live sheep export still exists only in WA. Over the last 20 years the value of that export has declined dramatically, by about 90 per cent, to the point where it is now worth about $77 million. The government's budgeted transition package exceeds this amount, and our committee has recommended the consideration of more.</para>
<para>In other comparable countries such as the UK and New Zealand, and even here on the east coast, live exports were phased out without a transition package and with either much shorter transition periods or none at all, as it was deemed commercially unviable as more productive markets emerged and the farmers simply moved on. But I know $77 million is still a significant sum for the communities from Dowerin to Wagin through to Esperance in the south. It supports the vibrancy of the towns, shops and sports clubs, and the $77 million provides the certainty needed for the shearing teams to schedule their move across the Wheatbelt, for the truck drivers to schedule their pick-ups to port, and, critically, for farmers to know they have a market to sell to when the weather is not optimal for wool or where the processors are overbooked.</para>
<para>With this in mind, I was determined to hear the perspectives of those directly impacted—farmers, shearers, processors, abattoir workers, truck drivers, shearers, vets—and from those many people across the nation who want to see Australia stand for better welfare of animals. The volume of engagement was enormous. There were over 13,000 contributions to the inquiry on the bill over the past few weeks. I note most of those submissions support the passage of this bill, but I'm not diminishing in any way the weight of those who oppose it; I will return to this shortly.</para>
<para>This engagement is on top of the engagement undertaken by the independent panel consulting on the phase-out of live sheep exports by sea, comprised of the chair, Phillip Glyde; the Hon. Warren Snowdon; Ms Sue Middleton, a local to the Wheatbelt area in WA; and Ms Heather Neil. The panel met with over 2,000 individuals, held 96 stakeholder meetings and received more than 800 submissions and 3,300 survey responses across the nine months between March and October 2023.</para>
<para>At the recent committee hearings both here in Canberra and at the Muresk ag college in the WA Wheatbelt, just outside of Northam, we heard from people on all aspects of agriculture, business, trade and civil society. In listening to the witnesses who gave evidence to the inquiry, these are the themes that came through for me. Firstly, there was a unanimous agreement that the welfare of all sheep being shipped was paramount, and that since more than 2,400 sheep died of heat stress on the <inline font-style="italic">Awassi Express</inline> voyage in August 2017 significant improvements had been achieved that have seen a much reduced average mortality rate in recent years; in 2022 the average was 0.14 per cent. The second theme was there was not an agreement on the extent that morbidity issues experienced for the weeks on board are welfare issues of concern. Concerns were raised around starvation of sheep, the ship motion, ammonia exposure, heat stress, stocking density, unhygienic environments from standing in faeces, unnatural lighting, scabby mouth and respiratory infections. The heat stress is particularly problematic. Ammonia builds up on board, creating humidity which leads to the wet bulb temperature increasing beyond the heat stress threshold of the sheep, which leads to suffering.</para>
<para>The most recent shipments that departed for Jordan and Saudi Arabia in the last few weeks sailed into conditions where temperatures were even exceeding 52 degrees. Hundreds of humans died in these last couple of weeks. We don't yet know the fate of the sheep on board because there's no independent vet, unfortunately, at this point, due to the security issues in the region. It is worth also noting that the temperatures involved in the <inline font-style="italic">Awassi Express</inline> tragedy were in the mid-30s. Therefore, on this matter, I've accepted the advice of the independent vets and believe morbidity is a welfare concern. This is coupled with the reality that Australians hold the view, as evidenced by our national processing practices, that our sheep should be killed humanely. Sadly, those arriving into the Middle East do not experience such a fate.</para>
<para>The third theme I heard was that opportunities to keep the sheep in WA and process them domestically are real, as is evidenced by the success here on the east coast. Many witnesses spoke about their concerns that a farm would be destocked because of a failure to find a market and that then their towns would suffer significantly. However, there was recognition that, if the numbers were held, then towns—particularly those that support abattoirs—would in fact grow. Matthew Journeaux, federal secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Regardless of whether those animals are exported live or are processed locally, all the jobs up to the sheep being put on a boat or being processed remain the same. The only difference is, if the truck turns right to the ports, the live export sheep are loaded with a handful of stockmen, and an Australian vet accompanies their journey; if the truck turns left and takes those animals to a processing facility, it immediately employs between 500 and 800 people directly and many more in industries that support the processing plant. Those wages are spent in the local community, and flow-on benefits are significant.</para></quote>
<para>But the current limitations on WA's abattoirs having sufficient skilled labour, regional accommodation, feedlots and cold room capacity and, critically, ensuring that the processors themselves are competitive and that, by extension, the supermarkets can offer the farmers a fair farmgate price are of paramount importance to first resolve.</para>
<para>The fourth theme was that the confidence in and the prospects of new markets to displace the live export market of some 500,000 sheep per annum are good, particularly on the back of new trade agreements finalised by this government with the UK and India, and perhaps in the EU and UAE, plus the growth in demand for mutton to China, which, as Mr Patrick Hutchinson from the Australian Meat Industry Council indicated, would be able to absorb the greater expected quantity as a result of this change. He stated that 'the global mutton market is performing exceptionally strongly and, obviously, Australia is the biggest exporter of that'. With trade into South-East Asia forecast to grow by around five per cent year on year, Mr Hutchinson continued by saying that, particularly for mutton trade, there were places like Malaysia et cetera and the UK for higher value product, and that we do have an opportunity in India.</para>
<para>Just yesterday, the Australian agricultural analysis firm Mercado noted that the current market for processed sheepmeat is strong. Both lamb and mutton volumes are well above what they were a year ago and for five-year average levels for the year to May, with the US and the Middle East soaking up extra supply. Current lamb exports are 25 per cent higher, year on year, for the January to May period, sitting just shy of 155,000 tonnes. Mutton exports sit 14 per cent above year-ago levels for January to May and 33 per cent more than the five-year trend, with the month of May also a record for mutton. The Middle East is a demand driver for both markets.</para>
<para>The current strength in the market for processed sheepmeat and the prospects for growth for many of our export partners mean this is the best time for WA to commence the transition to increase the capacity of processing facilities. Mecardo notes that this growth and the multitude of destinations will support processing levels and help protect the farmgate price from large supply. The confidence and growth in the processing sector is already evident too, with V&V Walsh investing $50 million in a new cold storage facility, and Wammco, a WA farming cooperative, committed to building a new facility and increasing capacity by half a million head by early 2026. And, as <inline font-style="italic">Countryman</inline> reported in November last year, the newly refurbished Geraldton meat exports facility aims to supply chilled and frozen meat products to customers in Malaysia, Singapore and the Middle East. Group executive director, Mr Syed Ghazaly, said the company had customers lined up in Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore, and he would aim to process the maximum 2½ thousand head per day of mostly chilled and frozen sheep, mutton and lamb for those markets.</para>
<para>From the themes to the report, the committee made three recommendations: first, that this bill be passed—it is time; second, the government should consider making additional funding available to support the transition. In my view, following discussions with people like Ms Bonnie Skinner, CEO of Sheep Producers Australia, following the hearings, the focus over the next four years must be on addressing the structural competition deficiencies in Western Australia in order to achieve a fairer price for farmers.</para>
<para>During the committee hearings, due to the variability in fluctuations in price, it was not possible to land on a single dollar value that needs to be bridged for the price achieved by live export by sea. However, there seems to be consensus that there is around a nominal 15 per cent increase potentially between the specification for mutton and what goes on the boat. The goal in the transition is to create competition and markets so that farmers get that fairer price for the 11 per cent for the approximate 500,000 head that are currently shipped by sea. What needs to change to enable more of the 29 licensed abattoirs in WA to be certified to international export? Of the eight current export-accredited abattoirs to process sheep and lamb, what needs to change so they can do multiple gradings on site so the processors can compete with each other for the different sizes and aged sheep?</para>
<para>We have heard about the success of the East Coast on air freighting sheep to Southeast-Asia; however, we can see the volumes have not returned to pre-COVID levels and the air trade is dominated by East Coast farmers. I think there is an opportunity for Western Australia to fill that gap.</para>
<para>We heard from experts like Dr Melanie Latter from Australian Veterinary Association, who spoke about the options around altering the genetics of the flocks so they will be more suitable for meat markets; for instance, the dual-purpose merino. She also said that veterinarians can assist producers to alter feeding and nutrition programs, summer cropping, containment feeding on farm and many other mechanisms so they are able to finish off the animal so they're suitable for processing industries.</para>
<para>We heard about the $4½ billion value in sheepmeat exports. Sheepmeat consumption is forecast to grow by seven per cent domestically and 15 per cent globally. Over the past eight years WA has generally sent a higher proportion of sheepmeat exports than the national average, yet we have not seen a return to those pre-COVID levels, so, again, it is an area in which gains can be made.</para>
<para>I call on all those who will sit around the table to shape that transition package with all of these promising realities in mind to ensure that the value in growth is not just left to the benefit of our supermarket giants, export agents and processors. A mechanism or model is needed to ensure farmers share in that value and are not priced gouged. To this end, a reminder to those opposite and to farmers around the country listening to this: it is a Labor government that is taking action to address the imbalance of bargaining power between supermarkets and suppliers. We are making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory to crack down on anticompetitive behaviour and to get a fairer deal for the farmers and families.</para>
<para>The third recommendation of the report is that the government will continue to work with the WA government on the transition, and we will. To end: I thank all those on the committee, the secretariat in particular, but mostly all those who appeared before the inquiry for your genuine care and concern to ensure farmers come out on top, and to all those who have written and spoken with me as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I start by thanking all members who have contributed to this debate on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 and the spirit in which you've contributed. I know this is an issue where passions run high and that is understandable given we are talking about—while it's declining—the livelihoods of many of our regional farmers. The member for Hasluck represents some rural communities as well and I thank her for her contribution. There are those of us who live in regional communities. In my own constituency I have live sheep exporters. That has been declining—not so much over in the West—so we are acutely aware of the decisions we are taking here, and I thank honourable members for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted.</para>
<para>This bill does deliver on a commitment to phase out live sheep exports by sea that this government made to the Australian people at the last election and in fact the election before that. This legislation does provide the certainty to farmers and the community that they have been calling for. The bill does prohibit the export of sheep by sea from Australia on and after 1 May 2028 and facilitates the rollout of the government's $107 million transition support package to allow the industry to adjust in the meantime. This assistance will support farmers and supply chain to make transition plans with confidence while capitalising on opportunities for more value-adding and local jobs right here in Australia. Phasing out of this trade marks a considerable step forward for sheep welfare and paves the way for farmers to further leverage the $4.5 billion sheepmeat export market and the $3.5 billion domestic sheepmeat industry.</para>
<para>The bill has been subject to parliamentary inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I thank everyone who participated in the inquiry and committee for its consideration of this bill. The House inquiry built upon the extensive consultation already undertaken by the independent panel in which over 2,000 individuals were consulted, nearly 100 stakeholder meetings were held and more than 800 submissions were received. I note the committee heard evidence that the government's policy would create between 500 and 800 direct jobs in meat processing with many more indirect jobs to flow. The standing committee released its advisory report on 21 June and recommended that the bill be passed. The government welcomes that recommendation.</para>
<para>The committee also recommended the government consider making additional funding available to support the transition potentially through the 2026 stocktake and continue to seek opportunities to work with the Western Australian government to refine and implement the transition support package. The government acknowledges these recommendations.</para>
<para>We are committed to supporting sheep producers and the sheep supply chain through the transition period. The government's transition plan includes appointing a transition advocate in 2024-25 and undertaking a stocktake of transition progress in 2026-27. These are key elements in monitoring the transition away from the trade and will help inform the government as to whether further funding is needed to assist the transition.</para>
<para>The government recognises the importance of local knowledge and connections when delivering support to individuals, businesses and communities in regional areas. The government would welcome the Western Australian government's partnership in delivering support to Western Australian sheep industry and supply chain participants. We will continue to look for ways to complement WA government efforts that help position affected individuals, businesses and communities for success up to and beyond the phase-out.</para>
<para>From the outset, we're committed to ensuring a planned and orderly transition away from the trade. The government's transition plan sees implementation based on: independent advice; the provision of certainty, time and support for the transition; ongoing management of and measures to enhance sheep welfare; and transition oversight and continued engagement with domestic stakeholders and our trading partners. We're providing certainty and time for adjustment through setting the end date for the trade and enacting this date in legislation through this bill. This is a level of certainty many have been calling for and allows four years for the planning and decisions to be made by those impacted by the phase-out, appropriate to their individual circumstances.</para>
<para>If this bill is not passed, uncertainty will continue for sheep producers, sheep supply chain businesses and exporters of live sheep by sea. We need to ensure that those affected by this phase-out have the opportunity to be well positioned, resilient and ready when the trade ends on 1 May 2028. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Maranoa be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:32]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>53</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>89</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:41]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>89</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>54</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7192" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7193" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7195" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to continue my remarks in support of the government's Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024. A full rewriting of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will be what follows this bill. As I was saying earlier in the debate, this is a really key step, but it isn't the last step. There is more to come. As recommended by Graeme Samuel, the rewriting of the EPBC Act to bring it into the 21st century is what comes next. That in itself is a big piece of work, and I'm not just talking about the drafting of the document but about reaching a place where there are new rules that will actually work. We have been stuck with the John Howard environment laws, which aren't working for the environment. They're not working for business and haven't done for many, many years. Our laws need to be right, and they also need to be able to be supported by a majority of this parliament.</para>
<para>And, yes; to the naysayers, we are being ambitious in our environmental objectives. Our policy goal is Nature Positive, which describes circumstances where nature, including individual species and whole ecosystems, is being repaired and regenerated rather than being in decline. I was really pleased to have the minister for the environment in my electorate recently to look at an example where a threatened species, the parma wallaby, has been brought back from the brink thanks to the work of one family. Peter Pigott, better known as Uncle Pete's Toys, has for decades and decades committed himself to tackling the problems that the parma wallaby faces. That is fantastic example of what Nature Positive is.</para>
<para>Our ambition sits in a reality of what is here in this chamber and in the Senate, where we navigate a course between poles which are a significant distance apart. On the one side, the Liberals and Nationals don't want anything to change and just want to oppose and block improvements to environment laws. On the other side are the Greens, who I don't believe want a solution, because they're in it for the fight. I doubt I will ever forgive their actions in 2009, which led to the end of the CPRS and the end of climate action until our re-election in 2022. That was 13 years of delay and damage. We cannot let that be repeated on this very important legislation and that which follows.</para>
<para>I am choosing to vote for progress and for a really big change. The only questions on this legislation should be: Do we want an independent EPA or not? Do we want better data to inform environmental decisions or not? And do we want tougher penalties for those breaking environment laws or not? They are the choices that we are making today.</para>
<para>These changes don't come in a vacuum. Last year Labor passed legislation to establish the world's first nature repair market, creating a market to encourage private spending on projects that protect and restore biodiversity, not unlike the work that Peter Pigott up in Mount Wilson has done with the Parma wallabies. We also increased the reach of our environmental laws so the minister for the environment must assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, which trigger our environmental laws.</para>
<para>As the second stage of our environmental law changes, this legislation is the tough cop on the beat that we promised. Environment Protection Australia, our EPA, is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. Passing this legislation will mean that we can get on with the nuts and bolts of setting up the new EPA before they're asked to administer the future new environmental laws. It allows a smoother transition of responsibilities from the department to the agency. We're establishing Australia's first national independent environment protection agency, with strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature.</para>
<para>The EPA would administer Australia's national environmental laws so that we're making better, faster decisions that better protect the environment. It is possible to do all those things. It would be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. The EPA would be a truly national environmental regulator that Australians can be proud of. It would be responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environmental laws, including things like recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality.</para>
<para>We're investing in people, our planning and our systems to speed up development decisions and to deliver quicker yeses and, where necessary, quicker noes. The government's offsets audit found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental laws currently had either clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. A separate audit found that one in four had potentially failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage they were doing, and we see this right through Western Sydney with major projects—a total failure. This is unacceptable, and there's been so little enforcement of these rules. That's what the EPA will do—be the enforcer. The EPA as the tough cop on the beat will enforce the laws through new monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers.</para>
<para>As I said, the offset is one particular area that I think we can all see needs an instant improvement. One of the pieces of data that came out last year was that one in seven developments could be in breach. Now, let's just explain what that is. That is where a business has not properly compensated for the impact the development is having on the environment. When you look at pockets of Cumberland plain in Western Sydney, there has been double dipping in terms of saying, 'Here's a piece that we're going to set aside,' and then, a few years later, that same piece will be set aside for a different project. The failure to properly administer this has been just catastrophic for the Cumberland plain in Western Sydney. Of course, the Samuel review into Australia's environment laws found that the regulator is not fulfilling this very necessary function. Professor Samuel also found that serious enforcement actions are rarely used and that penalties need to be more than 'a cost of doing business'.</para>
<para>Preventing environmental damage and ensuring our laws are upheld is one of the most important things that we can be doing in this place. For example, if organisations commit to mitigating, or to an offset to make up for, an unavoidable impact on nature, the public should be confident that that commitment will be kept, and right now we know that confidence is extremely low. When we put this bill into context, stage 3 of our nature positive legislation will continue our broader efforts to halt and reverse environmental decline and protect nature. The EPA in itself will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and enforcement actions using high-quality data and information. It will provide assurance that environmental outcomes are being met.</para>
<para>What I'd say is that most businesses do the right thing. We know that. Those of us who have been in business and who have worked with businesses big and small know that people, by and large, want to do the right thing. But we also know that businesses will do what they're required to do. When the penalties for breaking the law are too low and the risk of being caught is negligible, some companies and some individuals regard breaking the law as an acceptable cost of doing business, and that's why we're increasing penalties too. For extremely serious breaches of federal environment law, courts will be able to impose penalties of up to $780 million in some circumstances. In urgent circumstances, the EPA will be able to issue environment protection orders or stop-work orders to address or prevent imminent significant environmental risks and harm. The EPA will also be able to audit businesses to ensure that they're compliant with the environmental approvals that they have been given. The minister will retain the power to make decisions where they wish to do so and, in practice, will make decisions based on the advice of the EPA. The EPA will play a really important role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond. I think that once this organisation is established—as it is in every other state—we'll be saying, 'Why didn't we have this sooner?'</para>
<para>One of the other parts of this legislation that we're debating today is around the Environment Information Australia aspect. That is a body to enable better availability and use of environmental data, both in planning and decision-making. These bills set up the head of Environment Information Australia so it's an independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to the EPA, to the minister and to the public. That independent position is to report transparently on trends in the environment, and that will support the actions and decisions that we take to halt and reverse the decline and, in turn, to protect and restore nature.</para>
<para>A nature-positive Australia is good for the economy, it's good for livelihoods and it's good for wellbeing. A community like mine, which lives within a World Heritage area, knows that it's more than the wellbeing of our community; it's the viability of our community that depends on this.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024. Stakeholders and community groups have been clear that the Albanese government's new Environment Protection Agency will do nothing to prevent coal and gas expansion. This legislation is a cynical distraction from Labor's reneging on a promised overhaul of Australia's John Howard-era environment laws.</para>
<para>Habitat destruction and climate change are two of the greatest threats to the survival of Australia's wildlife. We are one of the most prolific land-clearing countries in the world, exacerbating the rising impact of climate change. As it stands, our current environment laws are ineffective at addressing these threats. Last year alone we hit a record number of species being added to the national threatened species list—an incredible 144. At the same time, in 2023, global emissions hit record highs. These stats are not independent of one another. Under our current environment laws, more than seven million hectares of threatened species habitat has been destroyed and 740 fossil fuel projects have been approved. This is not environmental protection; it's an environmental sellout to polluters.</para>
<para>Stakeholders such as Lock the Gate have described Australia's environment laws as 'not fit for purpose', and their analysis finds that this new EPA will be powerless to address the massive damage that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel projects are inflicting on our environment. The Albanese government describes this EPA plan as a 'tough cop on the beat' for the environment when it is more like a new cop administering the same old broken laws that continue to wave through fossil fuel projects in the midst of a climate crisis. Instead of protecting nature, the government has broken its promise to fix our environment laws in this term and has delayed indefinitely critical reform. The government announced its Future Gas Strategy to keep supporting new climate-polluting projects through to 2050 and beyond, and now we've been delivered a budget with absolutely no new funding for nature or wildlife protection. It's becoming more and more obvious that protecting the environment is simply not a priority for this government. The case for full environmental law reform has long been crystal clear and continues to become more urgent every single day. Significant time and resources have been committed by experts and stakeholders over countless years to equip the government with what it needs and yet we've been told to believe that this is the best we've got. It's not even close to coming up to scratch.</para>
<para>Environment Information Australia won't stop extinctions. It will, at best, let us know that they're happening, all while speeding up approvals that destroy more habitat. The Samuel review highlighted that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act does not support decision-making by First Nations people, whether it be their views, knowledge or aspirations for their own land and sea. As recommended in the review, First Nations people are entitled to expect stronger national protections of their cultural heritage that is consistent with international standards and inclusive of cultural heritage. Given these concerns, it's hard to see what the government has put on the table as any kind of necessary reform. The proposed Environment Protection Australia comes without teeth and without any strong mandate to enforce laws. It is little more than a rebranded government department.</para>
<para>After constant delays and lack of clarity from the government, including an inability to commit to the critical cultural heritage reforms that the Samuel review recommended, this broken promise at the 11th hour is unbelievable. It shows a complete disregard for the urgency of the issue at hand and makes it difficult to believe that this government has any real intention to deal with the now indefinitely delayed reforms. The Greens do not support the indefinite delay of critical environmental and cultural heritage law reforms. The government's diminished environment policy won't save our wildlife, won't stop native forest logging and won't stop the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. It's little more than a cave-in to polluters, and our environment will pay the price. The government should introduce a full package of environment laws to end native forest logging and to ensure that proposed coal and gas projects are properly assessed for their climate impacts so that we can actually stop the expansion of fossil fuels. That's how we stop climate change from getting worse and how we actually protect our environment. The government must also commit to a timeframe for an exposure draft of standalone First Nations cultural heritage legislation and full implementation of chapter 2 of the Samuel review.</para>
<para>This is a broken promise that sells out our environment and the millions of Australians who voted for and want climate action. Labor has caved in once again to the fossil fuel industry, which wants faster and easier approvals for its polluting and damaging new coalmines and gas mines. We're running out of time to save the planet, but this government wants our environment and our wildlife to wait while coal and gas companies get their applications fast-tracked so they can keep making more money and more pollution.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024. We went to the election promising a strong national, independent environment protection agency which would be a tough cop on the beat. We will do that through the body to be established, Environment Protection Australia. Through this legislation we are delivering on our very clear election promise. After a wasted decade under those opposite, we're getting on with the job of creating laws that will protect the environment. We are delivering on our programs, projects, policies and actions to create a nature-positive Australia.</para>
<para>No government has done more for the environment and for the climate than the Albanese Labor government. I wanted to be part of a government that delivered real action on climate change, and I wanted to push this change on behalf of my community because I know how important this issue is for my community in Chisholm. We have many wonderful local environmental groups who do really important work in advocating and caring for our local nature reserves, and advocating to people like me for the change they'd like to see in our country. I regularly meet with these groups to discuss both local environmental concerns and their broader concerns about climate change. Some of these groups who are making a positive difference for our environment locally include Baby Boomers for Climate Change Action, the Australian Conservation Foundation Chisholm branch, the KooyongKoot Alliance, the Friends of Scotchmans Creek and Valley Reserve, and Friends of Damper Creek Conservation Reserve.</para>
<para>I know my community in Chisholm shares my deep concerns about climate change. I'm really pleased to be a representative in a Labor government that wants to see our precious natural landscapes repaired, instead of continuing to see the decline that we witnessed under those opposite. Of course, it was unfortunately a wasted decade of environmental vandalism under those opposite.</para>
<para>We have a very clear choice now, as a nation. Do we want an independent environment protection agency? Do we want better data to inform environmental decisions? Do we want tougher penalties for those breaking environmental laws? Do we want Australia to be the first jurisdiction in the world to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation? I know people in my community really want to see these things delivered.</para>
<para>Our new Environment Protection Australia, along with Environment Information Australia, will ensure compliance with environmental laws. It will improve processes for business. It will integrate environmental data collections. What this will mean is that there will be consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country. This will inform decision-making, and it will track our progress against our goals, such as protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030.</para>
<para>I think we can find agreement that the current regulatory system simply does not work. Our legislation will fix our laws, with the result being more certainty and less bureaucracy for business. We will make sure that we improve nature, that we protect our unique native plants and animals, and that we prevent extinctions. That's precisely what constituents in my community expect, and that's what we're going to be delivering under an Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Last year, we passed legislation to establish the world's first nature repair market. We also increased the reach of our environmental laws. The Minister for the Environment and Water must assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, which trigger our environmental laws. Here, we are now moving quickly to establish an environment protection agency, and Environment Information Australia. These are crucial elements of our plans to create a nature-positive Australia. We want to get them in place as soon as possible to help enable this important work. We have no time to waste. We will continue to consult on the broader reforms to our environmental laws so we can get them through the parliament.</para>
<para>Environment Protection Australia, our national EPA, is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. Passing this legislation will mean that we can get on with the job of setting up the new EPA before they are asked to administer new environmental laws. It allows for a smoother transition of responsibility from the department to the agency. Through establishing Australia's first national independent environment protection agency, with strong powers and penalties, we will be able to better protect nature. The EPA will administer Australia's national environmental laws to protect nature, to protect our environment and to also make faster and better decisions. It will be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome-focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. Importantly, this will be a truly national environmental regulator that Australians can be proud of. It will be responsible for a wide range of activities under our nation's environmental laws, including in relation to recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, the wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality.</para>
<para>The government's offsets audits found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our laws had either clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. A separate audit found that one in four had potentially failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage they were doing. This is unacceptable.</para>
<para>The EPA will be the tough cop on the beat, enforcing our laws through new monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers. The Samuel review into Australia's environment laws found that the regulator is not fulfilling this necessary function. Professor Samuel also found that serious enforcement actions are rarely used and that penalties need to be more than 'a cost of doing business'. The minister recently released the audit of environmental offsets, and this echoes this shameful tale. It shows us that the current system is not working. Preventing environmental damage and ensuring our laws are upheld is one of the most important things we can do to protect nature. The EPA will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and enforcement actions, using high-quality data and information. It will provide the necessary assurance that environmental outcomes are being met.</para>
<para>Of course, we know that most businesses do the right thing. But, when penalties for breaking the law are too low and the risk of being caught is negligible, some companies and some individuals may regard breaking the law as an acceptable cost of doing business. That's why we're increasing penalties too. For extremely serious breaches of federal environment law, courts will be able to impose penalties of up to $780 million in some circumstances. The EPA will be able to issue environment protection orders, or stop-work orders, to address or prevent imminent significant environmental risks and harm in urgent circumstances. The EPA will also be able to audit businesses and ensure that they are compliant with environmental approval conditions. The minister will retain the power to make decisions where they wish to do so and, in practice, will make decisions based on the advice of the EPA. The EPA will play a vital role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond. The EPA will also advise the minister and the government of the day on how Australia's environmental laws can be improved.</para>
<para>Significantly, the EPA will not operate in a vacuum but, rather, will work closely with Environment Information Australia, as well as with state and territory governments. This will enable better availability and use of environmental data both in planning and in decision-making.</para>
<para>These bills also set up the head of Environment Information Australia, which is an independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to the EPA, the minister and the public. This is an independent position to transparently report on trends in the environment. This will support actions and decisions to halt and reverse the decline of nature and in turn protect and restore nature.</para>
<para>Environment Information Australia will work in collaboration with Australia's expert scientists and First Nations people to collect information and produce consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment. We know that a nature-positive Australia is good for the economy, for livelihoods and for our wellbeing. But achieving a nature-positive Australia relies on good quality and useful environmental information. The information here will inform investment, policy and regulatory decisions by government; by the private sector; by community groups, academics and scientists; and by philanthropic groups.</para>
<para>We know that natural environment information and data is currently fragmented, its quality is uncertain and what is available is not always readily accessible and usable. So having a consistent and reliable resource for businesses enables better site choices to avoid removing high-value habitat for our unique plants and animals. When project proponents are more easily able to select sites with minimised impacts on nature, projects can be more easily approved and completed more quickly. Legislating for independent, consistent and authoritative environmental reporting and information will mean that no Australian government can hide the truth about the state of our environment. This sets us apart from previous governments.</para>
<para>These bills provide more transparency in the critical information and data that underpins regulatory decision-making; this was a key recommendation of the Samuel review. This delivers on our promise at the last election to provide consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country. We know the work we're doing to define 'nature positive' is world leading. 'Nature positive' means improving our ecosystems, including the species that rely on and form part of an ecosystem. Creating a nature-positive Australia means that across the country nature is repairing and regenerating rather than continuing to decline. Our environment in Australia is a national asset and a responsibility for governments to protect. These bills make it a requirement for the government to commit publicly to national environment goals.</para>
<para>When we were first elected, Minister Plibersek released the official five-yearly report card on the Australian environment, the <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tate of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline><inline font-style="italic">nvironment</inline> report. We know the previous government received it but had kept it locked away until after the election, and, unfortunately, we found a catalogue of horrors. So much damage was done over the course of a decade to our environment, and that is a great shame. Our environment was in bad shape, and it was getting worse. It is absolutely critical that we act now to do what we can, responsibly, to protect the environment, so that generations to come are able to enjoy the amazing nature Australia offers.</para>
<para>I'm really proud to represent a government that takes its responsibility to nature, to the environment, seriously. I'm proud to be part of a government that's delivering real action for climate change, and I look forward to keeping on working with groups in my local community and across the country to meet our goals of protecting the environment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor are utter climate frauds. Labor are utter environment frauds. We're debating these bills today, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the associated bills, but do you know what the environment minister did last night? The environment minister, yesterday afternoon, approved 151 new coal and gas wells to go ahead, with fracking to occur, in a Gina Rinehart backed project, where the environmental impact statement said it's going to clear 530 hectares of koala dispersal habitat. The federal environment minister is bringing these laws to parliament, and yesterday Federal Environment Minister Plibersek approved a Gina Rinehart backed coal seam gas project in inland Queensland that will clear endangered koala habitat.</para>
<para>When you are in power, in government, you have the ability to stop new coal and gas projects. You have the ability under the law to stop the clearing of koala habitat. When you've got that power, in the middle of a climate crisis, you should use it. Even the government's own reports say that the biggest threat to our environment and our biodiversity is the climate crisis, and the biggest threat to koalas is this continued land clearing of their habitat. For them to have the gall to stand up here in this place and say, 'We're all about protecting the environment', less than 24 hours after the federal environment minister gave the green light to Gina Rinehart drilling 151 new coal seam gas wells that are going to clear koala habitat—it is absolutely galling. You've got the power, Labor, to tackle the climate crisis and to save our koalas, and what are you doing? Using your power to open up new coal and gas projects and clear koala habitat.</para>
<para>The environment minister approved the new Gina Rinehart coal seam gas project to run to the year 2080. Members from this place go back to their constituents and say to them: 'We care about the climate crisis. We care about your kids. Please vote Labor.' They are lions in their electorate when it comes to climate change but then they come to Canberra and back these new gas projects running to 2080. The government told us we would be at zero emissions by 2050 then they come and approve projects that run to the year 2080. What kind of planet are we going to have in 2080 if Labor keeps approving coal and gas projects? What kind of future are we going to have for our forests and koalas if Labor keeps approving Gina Rinehart wrecking and clearing koala habitat for projects that can run to 2080?</para>
<para>Do you know what, Deputy Speaker Vasta? When we came in here to move a motion this morning to say, 'No, Labor needs to overturn its decision,' not one Labor member crossed the floor to come and vote with us, not the member for Wills, not the member for Cooper, not the member for Richmond, not the member for Macnamara, not the member for Moreton. None of them, who say they care about the climate crisis, had the courage to do what Senator Payman did last night, which was cross the floor and vote for what is right.</para>
<para>Labor pretends to care, but the one thing you're given when you come to this place is a vote. You are given a vote. That's one thing every member of this parliament has that other people don't have. It's the reason people send you to Canberra. Labor come to this place, don't have the courage to cross the floor to say, 'No, don't open up a new gas project.' Why? Because they back it. Every single Labor MP in this place backs opening up new gas to run to 2080 and clearing koala habitat. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it is becoming harder and harder to tell Labor and Liberal apart when it comes to gas and coal. They both now back coal and gas in the system past 2050 up to 2080. The year 2080! You are saying gas mines can run until 2080. You are utter climate frauds, Labor.</para>
<para>Now, there are things that we could do in this place. We could pass laws to toughen up our environmental laws because they're broken. They're John Howard-era laws. Do you know what? Labor promised before the election that they were going to introduce new environment standards. They were going to bring forward legislation to toughen our environment laws and they haven't done it. They promised that they were going to bring in legislation, as the review suggested, that would lift the standards so that we would stop clearing koala habitat in this country, so that we would stop doing things that wreck our environment, and they have refused to do it.</para>
<para>Labor have gone out and held a press conference and said, 'Oh, we might get around to it before the election. In the meantime, we'll bring in legislation, not for a powerful cop on the beat but for an agency that doesn't have any teeth to enforce laws that John Howard put in place.' If you want any proof that these laws don't work and need toughening up, look at the fact that, under our laws, our environment minister has approved a Gina Rinehart gas project to run till 2080, and it's not the only one. Thirteen former coal and gas projects have been approved under this government—13!</para>
<para>We're talking about expansion of coal and gas mines, and Labor have the gall to tell us they care about climate and the environment. Well, the world's scientists and your own department are telling you one clear thing: the biggest threat to our beautiful environment, our biodiversity and the animals and plants it sustains is the climate crisis. Coal and gas are the leading causes of the climate crisis. In the middle of a climate emergency, there is no room for opening new coal and gas projects, absolutely none. The first step to tackling a problem is to stop making the problem worse. You can't put a fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. As we head towards summer, where there are threats of fires and droughts, as we head towards not only winters but expanding seasons where there are threats of floods, Labor now has responsibility for the devastation people are about to face because Labor is doing what it can to make the problem worse. Emissions are up under this government, and Labor keeps approving new coal and gas mines, even when they've got the power to stop it.</para>
<para>It is no wonder more and more people are saying it is getting harder and harder to tell Labor and Liberal apart when it comes to coal and gas. I thought we got rid of Scott Morrison. People voted for action on climate and the environment at the election. But they are not getting it. What they are getting are broken promises to fix our environment laws and more coal and gas mines approved by Labor.</para>
<para>For all of those Labor members who were interjecting, I hope that they get up and say it's not a good idea to open up new coal and gas mines. But, in fact, we heard the opposite earlier today. We heard Labor members saying, 'Yes, let's keep opening up new coal and gas mines.' If even one single Labor MP has the courage to come and cross the floor and vote against new coal and gas mines in the way that senators have shown they can, then I will applaud them. I'll be the first to applaud them. But so far not one single Labor MP has been prepared to come to this place and oppose the opening of new coal and gas mines. They have backed their government and their environment minister to the hilt in backing new coal and gas projects. For that, they're going to have to answer to the public and they're going to have to answer to their kids and their grandkids about why in the middle of a climate crisis every Labor MP keeps backing opening new coal and gas mines to run out to the year 2080.</para>
<para>This bill, the government's plan, won't save koalas. It won't stop native forest logging, and it won't stop the expansion of the coal and gas industry. In fact, the extinction crisis and global warming will continue to get worse. This is a broken promise that sells out our environment and the millions of Australians who want climate action. Instead, Labor has caved in to the coal and gas industry, who want faster and easier approvals for their polluting and damaging new coal and gas mines.</para>
<para>Two of the greatest threats to Australia's wildlife are habitat destruction and climate change. Under our existing laws, 740 fossil fuel projects have been approved and millions of hectares of critical habitat have been cleared. This is not environment protection; it's an environmental sellout to the big polluters. We are running out of time to save our planet, to save our precious environment, to save our koalas from the threat that they face. But Labor wants our environment and our wildlife to wait, refusing to bring in legislation to strengthen our environment laws. What we're seeing is that Labor is more concerned about appearing to do something than actually doing something. The system is broken in this country when coal and gas corporations who donate to Labor and Liberal are able to then keep getting their coal and gas mines approved and keep clearing our beautiful forests. If native forest logging is still permitted under Labor's laws, then the laws aren't good enough. If opening new coal and gas projects is still permitted under Labor's laws, then the new laws are not good enough.</para>
<para>We say to you in this parliament: when millions of people across the country vote for a change, let's deliver that change. Let's deliver that change. Let's pass laws that stop new coal and gas projects. Let's pass laws that stop native forest logging. Let's pass laws that protect our environment and our koalas. But Labor is refusing to do that. Actions speak louder than words. Actions speak louder than words. On this very day that we're debating it, it's less than 24 hours after environment minister Plibersek approved a new massive coal-seam gas project with 151 new gas wells because Gina Rinehart asked for it. That is what this Labor government is doing with its actions.</para>
<para>People across this country want our environment protected, and they are increasingly seeing through this government. They are seeing through this government that says, 'We care about housing,' and then comes to this place and gives billions in handouts to wealthy property investors that push up the price of housing out of the reach of renters and deny millions of renters the chance to buy their own home. They hear this government say, 'We really want to take action to reduce inequality,' and then the government come into this parliament and give every politician and billionaire a $4½ thousand a year tax cut while leaving millions of people living in poverty. This government say, 'We are concerned about the cost-of-living crisis,' and then they come in here and say that there are billions of dollars for handouts to coal and gas corporations but not enough to fund a rent freeze or make child care free or to put dental into Medicare. They come in here and say, 'We've got an environment law for you, and under this law all of John Howard's and Tony Abbott's bad legislation remains, as far as protecting our environment is concerned,' and then the minister goes out the back after the debate is over and signs off on the clearing of koala habitat and the opening of new coal seam gas wells—because Gina Rinehart asked for it.</para>
<para>People are seeing through this government. People know that we are facing some big crises in this country—a housing crisis, a cost-of-living crisis, a climate crisis, and an environment and extinction crisis. There was hope when we had a change of government that Labor would work across the parliament to pass laws that actually tackle the crisis. Instead, we are seeing these bandaid answers that are more about getting a headline than actually fixing the deep problems that this country is facing. Labor keeps taking the public for mugs, thinking, 'If we just pass a bill that has "environment" scrawled on the front of it in crayon, people will give us a tick.' Well, no. Under this law, it will still allow coal and gas mines to be opened. It will still mean the minister can keep approving the clearing of native forest and koala habitat. It will still mean that environmental destruction will proceed apace. That is why this bill should be so much better and why people are getting angrier, and we are going to keep holding this government to account for its broken promises and its failure to tackle the crises that this country is facing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our government is fighting climate change head-on, with a concrete agenda and a conviction to drive better outcomes for our precious, unique environment. Over the last two years the Albanese government has dramatically increased renewables in the energy grid, committed to more protections for Commonwealth marine parks, invested in new recycling ventures that reduce waste and is acting to remove feral animals from significant environmental landscapes—and so much more. Importantly, this legislation before us today includes groundbreaking reform, with the establishment of a national EPA that will provide greater protection for our natural assets and significant heritage sites, with significant penalties for breaching our environmental laws. Under the Albanese government, we are setting our nation up for a nature-positive future.</para>
<para>The bills before us today will play a key role in securing that future. These bills—the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024—comprise one of the most significant steps taken by a federal government in more than a decade. They will establish two organisations that are set to reshape how we protect our environment and tackle climate change: firstly, the independent, national environment protection agency, and, secondly, Environment Information Australia. Together these two agencies will strengthen our nation's ability to address climate change. The EPA will be a tough cop on the beat. It will be able to issue environment protection orders or stop-work orders to anyone breaking the law. It will also be able to audit businesses to ensure they are compliant with environmental approval conditions. These laws will bring maximum fines for breaches of environmental laws into line with punishments for serious financial offences such as insider trading and market manipulation. For extremely serious breaches of environmental law, courts will be able to impose fines of up to $780 million or send offenders to prison for up to seven years.</para>
<para>The new EPA will provide better guidance and education to make sure that businesses are clear about the rules. We know that under the current arrangements mistakes are made and breaches do occur, and that's why our environment minister ordered the department to conduct an offset audit last year. The audit found that around one in seven developments could be in breach of its offset conditions, and, as a result, for the first time, a dedicated team has been set up to proactively audit offsets for projects approved under national environmental law. These results underscore the need for urgency to strengthen enforcement, because stronger enforcement means better outcomes for our environment. The EPA will be able to play an important role in monitoring issues related to offsets. In addition, the EPA will be responsible for enforcing other federal laws relevant to recycling, hazardous waste, wildlife tracking, ozone protection and, importantly, air quality.</para>
<para>When it comes to meeting our ambitious goals like protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030, we need to ensure the EPA has all the data it needs to get the job done. That's where the EIA comes in. It will provide reliable, consistent data to track Australia's progress against our international obligations and ensure Australians have a clear picture of how we're tracking in our push to protect more of our country's environment. Of course, we have access to data now, but the crisis we face demands more resources, and that's what the EIA will be able to provide.</para>
<para>The data we do have, which comes from various sources, makes clear that our environment can't withstand an opposition which stands in the way of environmental reform—an opposition that is happy to gamble with our environment, with climate change and with our energy and economic security by pausing the delivery of renewables and instead promising untested, uncosted and unreliable nuclear reactors across Australia. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is delivering on its reliable renewables plan, which is the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy that Australians deserve. It's a plan that makes sense. It's a plan that delivers green jobs and that will strengthen our energy security, drive down emissions and play a massive role in addressing climate change. As part of our work to address climate change and better protect our environment, we're delivering on our commitment to protect more of what's precious—our amazing native species, our coastline and our bush.</para>
<para>All of us on this side of the House recognise that, for too long, we've seen the devastating consequences of a changing climate, with extreme heat and devastating floods forever changing Australia's environment and how we live. It's a challenge that was ignored by the former government, and it's a challenge that demands action now. And that's what these bills are all about.</para>
<para>Passing this legislation will mean that we get on with the job of setting up the national EPA. It will allow a smoother transition of responsibilities from the department to the agency and underpin the establishment and administration of new environmental laws and penalties. With this considered, everybody agrees that the current regulatory system just doesn't work. Our government is committed to fixing these laws to make sure they improve nature, protect our unique native animals and plants and prevent extinctions. That's what my communities expect, and it's what we are delivering.</para>
<para>Importantly, the bill outlines that the minister will retain the power to make decisions when required and in practice with advice from the EPA. It should be noted that the EPA will play an important role in advising the minister and the government of the day on how Australia's environment laws can be improved. The bill also defines, for the first time, the term 'nature positive' and introduces a requirement to report on Australia's national progress towards that outcome. This will be the first time that any country has defined 'nature positive' in legislation and put in place national reporting against this objective. In short, 'nature positive' means improving our ecosystems, including the species that rely on and form part of our ecosystems. Creating a nature-positive Australia means that, across Australia, nature is repairing and regenerating rather than continuing to decline. Requiring reports to be prepared and published online every two years, instead of every five years, will allow us to get onto the front foot and better apply and track protections which are most needed. That's why the <inline font-style="italic">State of the environment</inline> report includes a new requirement to report on the progress of the government's national environmental goals. The bill makes it a requirement for government to commit publicly to national environmental goals.</para>
<para>Last year Labor passed legislation to establish the world's first Nature Repair Market. We also increased the reach of our environmental laws so that the minister for the environment must assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, which trigger our environmental laws. Our government will continue consulting on the broader reforms to our environmental laws so that we can get them through the parliament. I encourage the opposition, the Greens political party and the rest of the crossbench to engage in this process in good faith.</para>
<para>On top of this, our recent budget also provides $19 million to process assessments for priority renewable energy related projects and $65 million for extra research into threatened species so sensitive areas can be more easily avoided and suitable projects can be more quickly approved based on robust, existing, publicly available data. The budget also secures Australia's position as a global scientific leader, investing $371 million to rebuild and upgrade our research station on World-Heritage-listed Macquarie Island. This will boost our capacity to monitor climate and greenhouse gas emissions and accurately forecast droughts and rainfall. We've also locked in $35.6 million to continue developing the processes and systems needed to administer our world-first Nature Repair Market. This builds on our more than $500 million investment to better protect our threatened species, as well as to crack down on feral animals and weeds. We're also driving Australia's transition to a circular economy, investing $23 million to develop a new national circular economy framework; continuing to tackle problematic waste streams, such as packaging; and getting on with the development of much-needed new recycling schemes for solar panels. This comes on top of the $1 billion state, federal and industry investment to increase Australia's recycling capacity by over one million tonnes.</para>
<para>In closing, with our budget measures and through the nature-positive reforms, we will continue the fight to protect our native species, our amazing coastal environments and our expansive hinterlands that can be enjoyed into the future. This is a responsibility that our government accepts without question, and it is a responsibility that underscores our mission to act as stewards of our precious natural assets for the sake of generations to come.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's be clear about what the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills are about. They're about facilitating the expansion of coal and gas, making coal and gas billionaires richer—giving them bigger profit margins—accelerating climate change and screwing over ordinary Australians and the billions of people across the world that will be impacted by devastating climate change. Labor has backed down on even promising to pass their already weak environmental laws and now are bowling up a bill that will allow for the expansion of coal and gas.</para>
<para>Let's talk about who's happy about this bill and this backdown. The Minerals Council of Australia is one of the supporters of this backdown and this bill. They happen to represent—they're the lobby group for—some of the largest coal and gas corporations in Australia and across the world. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia called the reforms 'better for business'—which is funny, because I assume that these bills were meant to be about being better for the environment. And don't take the Greens word for it. The Australian Conservation Foundation said they were 'frustrated and deeply disappointed' by this backdown. The Wilderness Society said the proposed EPA:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… lacks the independence and integrity needed to shield development and environmental decision-making from undue influence by vested interests.</para></quote>
<para>Let's talk about undue influence by vested interests. We know, and the government's own department has said this, that the key destructive factor for Australia's environment, the key driver of climate change in Australia is the expansion of coal and gas. It accelerates climate change and destroys Australia's environment. And today, of all days, to have government members stand up in here and claim to care about climate change when the environment minister has just approved 151 new gas wells, a giant coal seam gas project for Senex, who are part-owned by Gina Rinehart's company, Hancock Prospecting—by the way, Senex, have made $1.2 billion of revenue in Australia and have not paid a single cent in tax. This is from publicly available ATO data. It's genuinely incredible.</para>
<para>Labor claim to care about the environment. Their plan is net zero by 2050, and yet they continue to approve coal and gas projects out past 2050. These 151 approved gas wells will be running out past 2080. We have already been told by the world's scientists that we are on track for exceeding 1.5 degrees of warming in the next few years. There's an 80 per cent chance of that happening in the next few years. Now that doesn't sound like much, 1.5, but the effects are going to be devastating and we are already feeling them in Australia: record heatwaves, bushfires, floods. Too often the victims of these are ordinary Australians who die tragic and awful deaths as a result of climate crises, as a result of floods and bushfires made worse by climate change, destruction of our local habitat, our natural habitat and the environment.</para>
<para>What is most remarkable is to hear Labor members in this place get up and talk about the effects of climate change, talk about the devastating effects of climate change, and then pretend—I don't know. Genuinely, I don't know. Either they pretend that they haven't heard it or they just have some sort of bizarre cognitive dissonance that separates the fact that the key driver of climate change is the expansion of coal and gas mines and that their government keeps approving and expanding coal and gas. You can't think about those two things at the same time and not realise there's some sort of contradiction.</para>
<para>The other thing the government does is try to claim Australia's a big part of a global order and they're all making efforts to stop climate change—except for the fact that Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In fact, the only two countries ahead of us on the exportation of fossil fuels are Saudi Arabia and Russia—hardly welcome company. So that means that Australia has a crucial global role that it could play in tackling climate change. Instead, it is pouring more fuel on the fire and making climate change worse. How can they claim—the Labor Party, the government—on one hand that they care about the environment and they care about climate change when on the other hand they're actively pursuing decisions that are making the problem worse? How can you do that? How can the government do that?</para>
<para>Let's be clear about this bill. This bill will allow for the approval of new coal and gas projects and destroying local environments. The decision today by the environment minister—151 new gas wells—will bulldoze huge swathes of koala habitat before we get to the fact that gas has an impact. And let's be clear about the impact that gas has. The lie at the heart of the Future Gas Strategy is that somehow gas is cleaner than coal. Gas produces methane, and methane is literally 80 times more potent than CO2 at warming the planet. It is accelerating the rate of climate change in this country. And let's be clear about who this ultimately benefits, because this is the most sick thing: in the context of a massive cost-of-living crisis, in the context of an environmental crisis, the context of a climate crisis, the only people the expansion of gas is benefitting are billionaires, are big fossil fuel corporations who get away with paying barely any tax.</para>
<para>There's a claim, another complete mistruth—it's not factual; it's a lie—that Australia has a shortage of gas. Australia is the biggest exporter of gas in the world, or sometimes second-biggest behind Qatar. There's not a shortage of gas in this country. What happens right now is the gas gets mined and shipped overseas while accelerating climate change, while those same gas corporations often pay zero dollars in tax. In some years companies like Chevron, Santos and Woodside will make tens of billions of dollars in income and will pay, in dollar terms, less tax than a teacher.</para>
<para>Then we come to this backdown on environmental laws and this joke of a bill that, again, as is so typical of this government, makes it look like they're doing something verbally and rhetorically. But at the same time they are taking actions that are doing the complete opposite thing and accelerating climate change. Where does this end? If the government has its way, and the Labor and Liberal parties have their way—and let's be clear: no wonder it is getting harder to tell Labor and the Liberals apart, because this is basically a reheated Scott Morrison strategy—is the government really suggesting we're going to get to 2050 as the world punches past 2½ degrees warming, and as we have record numbers of heatwaves and billions of climate refugees moving across the world, the complete bleaching and death of our Great Barrier Reef and precious places in Australia, and the continued logging of native forests? Are we going to get through all that to 2050? And is the government really suggesting that, at that point, it's going to continue to expand coal and gas mining? There are coal projects that this Labor government in this term have approved that are due to function past 2070. How, on the one hand, can this government claim they support net zero by 2050 but then on paper approve coal and gas projects that go past 2050? Genuinely, it would be great to have an explanation for that.</para>
<para>What would an alternative pathway look like? We could be debating new environmental laws that have a climate trigger—that where approvals of new projects in Australia take place they need to take into account climate change because it is the biggest threat to our local environment. That seems pretty reasonable. I would argue it seems deeply illogical to the vast majority of Australians that we have environment laws that don't force the minister to take climate change into account. We could then ban the expansion of coal and gas—ban it right now. We could fairly tax our existing gas projects and our existing coal projects as we phase them out over time. We could collect trillions of dollars in revenue and use that to help people transition out of fossil fuels, to help build alternative wealth creating industries, to help tackle the cost-of-living crisis right now. Australia could do that. Countries like Norway have a sovereign wealth fund of over a trillion dollars because they fairly tax their resource industry. Over here we just have more fossil fuel billionaires.</para>
<para>That could be a pathway, but it would mean breaking the stranglehold fossil fuel corporations have over our political system. I don't think people realise just how powerful they are. We saw Labor make a promise, going to the election, to bowl up a series of pretty weak environmental reforms—and the government can't even agree to those. They've backed down on those at the behest of fossil fuel corporations—they were celebrated when they backed down by the Mineral Council, the chief lobby group of fossil fuel corporations—and now we have a situation where they're not going to be taxed at all, in some instances.</para>
<para>Some of the biggest and most powerful fossil fuel corporations in Australia, in some years, as they have last year and in previous years, have paid less tax in dollar terms than a nurse or a teacher in Australia, and they then encounter environmental laws that allow them to expand coal and gas out past 2050, accelerating climate change, and they wash their hands of the consequences. Are they going to be the ones that pay for the cleaning up after the next floods, bushfires and heatwaves? Are they going to be the ones having to pay for the next climate related deaths? Are they going to be the ones having to pay for the insurance people can't afford to pay any more on their homes, for rebuilding their homes and livelihoods, for rebuilding communities? Absolutely not. They'll continue to not pay any tax. They'll continue to get favourable laws.</para>
<para>We've seen situations in the past in this term of government where the head of Santos can write to the government and ask them to change the law to make it easier for their gas projects to be approved, and then months later the minister will go and do it. What about the people on low incomes right now who need poverty payments, with their payments currently forcing them to live in poverty, raised above the poverty line? What about renters who need a freeze or cap on rent increases? Could they write to the government and demand the government take serious action for them? Apparently they can try, but they'll be ignored because they don't have the financial power and weight that those fossil fuel corporations do. This is what this debate is about today. It would be great to hear one Labor member in this place get up and explain how it's possible to expand coal and gas mining past 2050 and still claim that this government cares about climate change or the environment.</para>
<para>Answer some of those questions! How can we tackle climate change if this government keeps approving and expanding coal and gas projects past 2050? How is it that the government of Australia, one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, can claim they're tackling climate change when they're adding more fuel to that and expanding the exportation of fossil fuel corporations? How is it that you made a promise to the electorate about a series of environmental reforms that this government can't even keep? How is it that the only people celebrating this backdown and this bill that we're debating right now are the Minerals Council of Australia and other fossil fuel corporations? Answer those questions, and then maybe we'll start getting to the truth.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We won't take lectures from the Greens political party, who voted 41 to 32 in the Senate in December 2009 to side with the climate deniers over there and to not take action on climate change. Hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon pollution is in the atmosphere because the Greens political party say one thing and do another. The Greens housing spokesperson over there can't find a housing proposal in his own electorate he'll support. He comes in here and gives us platitudes of support for public, social and affordable housing, but he can't find one that he'll support locally. I see that in his walking out now.</para>
<para>The Greens say one thing and do another. You can't find an environment group that won't support the legislation. I noticed that three Greens spokespersons spoke beforehand in this debate. Not one addressed the actual contents of the bills before the chamber. They know that every conservation group supports this legislation. They won't support it. They'll side with the coalition on it as they did in December 2009 when opposing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Don't believe that they want to take action on climate change as the Leader of the Greens said, because, when given chances to do so in the past, they haven't. When given chances to do so in terms of housing, they haven't.</para>
<para>They are great heroes here, but, when they go back to their electorates, they don't do the right thing. We won't take any self-righteous lectures from the Greens in relation to this. We know that the environment groups support this legislation. The Australian Conservation Foundation welcomes the government's announcement that they will set up an agency to enforce environmental laws, which is something previous governments failed to do. The WWF says that the EPA is a 'potential game changer'. The Australian Marine Conservation Society says that these new institutions are 'essential and welcome'.</para>
<para>The Greens are opposing this. They can't find an environment group that supports them on this legislation. I notice that not one of the three Greens people that spoke on this bill actually addressed its contents. You know why? If they addressed the contents of this bill, they'd realise how positive this bill is for nature. It's absolutely positive. We are doing the right thing here and taking steps. I imagine you'll see one Liberal and National Party person after another getting up and siding with the Greens in relation to this issue as the Greens end up voting with them on this particular legislation.</para>
<para>I want to speak on what the legislation is actually going to do and explain how positive nature legislation will have a positive impact on the environment and what this legislation is geared to achieve. I'm pleased to speak on Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. We're making significant investments here to protect more of our natural world. Those opposite, and the crossbench and the Greens as well, are going to say that they want to take action, but when given the chance to actually vote for it, they won't. We're going to fix up more of what's been damaged and care for the places we love. The Greens act like they're pure, holy and righteous all the time—that they're the only ones who care for the environment. Well, they're not. They give us lectures all the time in this place, but look at what they do, not what they say.</para>
<para>We had a decade of waste under the previous coalition government. They left institutions to manage the state of despair and the repair that we need to undertake in relation to the environment. Through our Nature Positive Plan, we're doing more than ever to protect our natural world and fix up more of what's been damaged. We are supporting sensible development and good local jobs. We've already completed the first stage of the reform. We passed legislation to establish the world's first nature repair market and expanded the water trigger to apply to all unconventional gas projects. We are now moving quickly to deliver Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia. It's something that we said we would do. It is the environment and business that will benefit from the second stage of our Nature Positive Plan. These changes will protect the environment and support sensible development. They will deliver stronger environmental powers, faster environmental approval, more environmental information and greater environmental transparency.</para>
<para>The key measures include the first national independent Environment Protection Agency, with strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature, with $121 million in the May budget for this new body—but the Greens aren't going to support it. Seriously! There will be more accountability and transparency with the new body called Environment Information Australia, which gives businesses easier access to the latest environmental data, and will release <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tate of </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">environment</inline> reports every two years and report on progress on our national environmental goals, with $51.5 million set aside in the budget for this, but the Greens aren't going to support it. There will be faster environmental approvals on projects, thanks to a $100 million investment, including renewables and critical minerals, but the Greens aren't going to support it. Combined with a significant investment in funding, this stage of reforms will deliver better environmental protection laws, and that's really important.</para>
<para>The key feature in the first piece of legislation is really critical, and that is the establishment of our first national Environment Protection Agency with new powers and penalties. We talked about it in the election campaign, and some of my colleagues have talked about the EPA being the tough cop on the beat in relation to the environment. It will be able to issue stop-work orders to prevent serious environmental damage and proactively audit businesses to ensure they are doing the right thing. Under the changes, the Minister for the Environment and Water will ask the new EPA to examine illegal land clearing and offset conditions as a priority, after a recent audit found one in seven developments could be in breach of their offset conditions. Penalties will increase to align maximum fines with punishments for serious financial offences. Courts will be able to impose fines of up to $780 million or send people to prison for up to seven years for extremely serious, intentional breaches of federal environment law—and the Greens won't support it.</para>
<para>The second bill before the house is the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, which sets up a statutory and independent head of the new Environment Information Australia, EIA, which will provide up-to-date and transparent environmental data and information. It will be a reliable source to help business make faster and easier development decisions. The EIA will release <inline font-style="italic">State of the environment</inline> reports every two years, instead of five, so we have a better understanding of what's going on.</para>
<para>We're creating a nature-positive Australia, and that will mean nature is repaired and regenerated faster and will be less likely to continue to decline. The government's doing more than ever to protect our country's natural treasures, native plants and animals, so nature can continue to repair. We're not just doing this to protect the environment; we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. It's the ethical and moral thing to do. Last year, the government passed critical legislation to establish the first nature repair market, driving business and philanthropic investment in nature repair and threatened species protection. The budget locks in $35.6 million over two years to develop the processes and systems to administer the scheme. It builds on the more than $500 million investment we are undertaking to better protect our threatened species, such as koalas, quolls and Australian sea lions, and crackdown on feral animals and weeds.</para>
<para>My own electorate of Blair has many wonderful natural assets including attractions like Flinders Peak in the Flinders-Goolman Conservation Estate, White Rock in the Spring Mountain Conservation Estate in Ipswich, several state forests in the Somerset region and a number of koala conservation corridors and projects that our government has provided grant funding towards. I want to thank the environment groups in these areas for the work they're doing. We're developing stronger protections for precious environmental assets like these through the reforms we're undertaking here.</para>
<para>We're working to support faster and clearer decisions for business. I don't know if the Greens understand it, but we actually live in a free-enterprise economy. Indeed, the budget provides $134.2 million to strengthen and streamline environmental approval decisions on priority projects. These include renewables and critical minerals. That greater certainty for business will help drive investment in nation-building projects. When the minister first announced the Nature Positive Plan, she said she would take some cooperation, compromise and common sense to deliver it, and that's how we've done it.</para>
<para>The government's delivering stage 1 of the plan that we adopted last year. We will fully deliver stage 3 of the reform to make environmental laws less bureaucratic and fit for purpose by continuing to consult with stakeholders for further updates to these laws. The minister and the department have already consulted around 100 groups, held public webinars which 3,000 people have attended and received 2,500 submissions. So we're not doing this without support. We know that environment groups and the public support this legislation. A comprehensive exposure draft of the laws will be released for public comment before being introduced into parliament. So we're moving as fast as we can to put this legislation—it's big and complex, and we need to get it right—but it's part of what we said we'd do before the election,. It is part of our election commitment, and we're doing what we said we would do. The current act is about a thousand pages, so the legislation is similarly weighty.</para>
<para>There's some criticism from those opposite and particularly from the Greens political party. There's a saying that, if the noise in one ear is roughly equal to the noise in the other, it shows you've probably got the balance about right. Don't take it from me; take it from Professor Graeme Samuel who recently said, 'This criticism from those opposite'—and indeed from the Greens—'is simply unwarranted because change is going to happen, and we've got to get the right result from proper consultation.' He told a recent Senate inquiry: 'Just sit and wait; take a chill pill. What we're going to get will satisfy all their aspirations, as set out in the Nature Positive Plan.'</para>
<para>We're going through a complex process. It's been an abysmal failure over the past 25 years and we need to get it right. The government and the minister are doing everything exactly as they should be doing. I don't underestimate the complexity of what has to be done. Professor Samuel has called out the mining industry, especially the WA chamber of mines, saying that its claims that the government's proposed update of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act, would signal the end of mining were 'utter rubbish'. He said, 'The mining community needs to understand the proposed reforms are designed to protect the environment whilst safeguarding and simplifying approval processes by compressing state and federal approvals into one process.' He said, 'Neither side would get 100 per cent of they want, but we should be aiming for 80-plus per cent.' It's a good example of 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good', which is a message that the Greens political party could adhere to, just for once.</para>
<para>In addition, key stakeholders, as I outlined before, have supported this legislation. It's interesting that Professor Samuel was commissioned by the former coalition government to review the EPBC Act yet they ignored his recommendations in government and now in opposition are against the proposed reforms coming out of that process as well as the establishment of the EPA. It's another example of the coalition opposing everything for political expediency. It's pure obstructionism and opposition for opposition's sake.</para>
<para>When we were first elected, the minister released the official five-year report card on the Australian environment, the <inline font-style="italic">Australia state </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the environment</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 2021</inline> report. The former minister and now deputy opposition leader received it before Christmas. She chose to keep it hidden, locked away until after the federal election. It's a catalogue of horrors, and it shows just how much damage a decade of Liberal and National party neglect did to our environment.</para>
<para>The report says that the Australian environment is in very bad shape and getting worse, and that we need to take action. Is it any wonder our environment fared so badly under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments? We had the spectacle of the now Leader of the Opposition, when he was a minister in the previous government, laughing about rising sea levels in the Pacific. A decade of climate denialism is an environmental crime. It says a lot about the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to water down Australia's environment laws introduced by John Howard when he was prime minister. And, last week, we saw the opposition's risky and expensive nuclear reactor plan, which would be an absolute disaster for the environment, given concerns about nuclear safety and waste. Talking to constituents in the country areas around Ipswich in my electorate last week, most of them were pretty clear that they don't want the nuclear gamble in their backyards. One of the coalition's two proposed nuclear reactors are in my home state of Queensland—Tarong Power Station in the south Burnett, which is just across the border from my electorate. They're proposing seven locations, but who is to say that they won't expand to more places, like Swanbank in Ipswich and Wivenhoe Power Station located in my electorate?</para>
<para>The real irony here is that while we're trying to create certainty for business through our nature-positive laws, the Liberal and National parties' nuclear announcements are creating greater uncertainty, and they're supporting the Greens political party as well. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These Nature Positive (Environment Protections Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills yet again represent Labor's spin. As the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> columnist Robert Gottliebsen pointed out earlier this year, 'nature positive' is lifted straight from George Orwell's <inline font-style="italic">Nineteen Eighty-Four</inline> newspeak: calling something positive when it's anything but.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's revised nature-positive proposals are only positive for bloated bureaucracy and more green tape for business, farmers and other job creators. The development of this bill has been anything but the transparent government that we were promised before the May 2022 election. The hallmark of this government's work is that nondisclosure agreements have been used extensively, and industry bodies have reportedly been shown only fragments of the bill. Given the government's practice of guillotining debate, I have to wonder how much time I'm actually going to have on this, so let me get to the facts quickly!</para>
<para>In the last two financial years, there have been 109 referrals for environment protection and biodiversity conservation, or EPBC approval, for renewables projects, compared with 72 for the mining industry. I hasten to add that less than three per cent of referrals come from agriculture. Many proposed mining projects are for rare earths and critical minerals for the green fantasy of an energy grid underpinned by batteries. Let's be clear: there are insufficient resources in the world for every country's wish list for batteries. There is grave danger in putting all our eggs in the battery market when, for instance—and as the co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Hydrogen—I'd say there might be other technologies that might surpass EV technology. Of course this includes nuclear energy. The sad reality of Greens policy is that batteries are not included. Yet the weak Prime Minister is trying to appease the Greens, who are throwing their toys out of the cot and screaming that we aren't taking action on climate change fast enough. Time and again, we see the Greens political party whining to the responsible adults in the room about economic policy, demanding more money be thrown at their pet projects. Coalition governments fix the budget mess those opposite create, but the Greens are making it harder and harder to get our economy back on track. The subsidies in renewable energy alone are shrouded in such secrecy and obfuscation that there ought to be a major inquiry into the misinformation and falsehoods of the government and captured agencies in the energy debate. The playing field is anything but level and yet we are told time and time again that renewables are the cheapest.</para>
<para>The Australian public are no fools. They see their power bills and they have called the climate con job for what it is. And farmers in my electorate know that the climate agenda is coming for their prime agricultural land. Minister Plibersek has rejected the proposed expansion of the Port of Hastings, which would have paved the way for offshore wind development. Tasmania has gone cold on offshore wind too. Don't get me wrong—if the environmental credentials in offshore wind don't stack up, by all means reject them. My concern for my electorate of Mallee and for regional Victoria is that Labor's push for radical renewable energy targets will see it look to onshore wind to meet those targets. For some reason, Labor is happy to run roughshod over environmental and agricultural land as opposed to projects at sea. It is as though the whales and dolphins vote and regional Australians don't.</para>
<para>Already, the Victorian planning minister Sonia Kilkenny has been given powers to fast track the planning aspect of the renewables rollout on land, laying aside any lack of social licence and community concerns. The Albanese Labor government's May budget committed $20 million to help fast track renewable energy project approvals. Most concerning is a document the Victorian government have tried to hide—that if offshore wind projects fail, they will need to use up to 70 per cent of Victoria's agricultural land. State ministers are already using ministerial orders and new powers to sideline community concerns, so that threat to 70 per cent of Victoria's agricultural land looms very large. Nationwide, Labor's doomed green energy targets right through to 2030 require that 22,000 solar panels be installed every day and 40 wind turbines per month. By 2050 there is to be 28,000 kilometres of new transmission poles and wires, which is equivalent to almost the entire coastline of mainland Australia.</para>
<para>As we have seen in Mallee, with the 400-kilometre VNI West transmission line and wind turbine proposal, state Labor claim to have green credentials but have been ignoring local concerns about the impacts on native species. Victorian Labor will do untold damage, racing from the current situation of 37 per cent of energy from turbines and panels to their political target of 95 per cent in just 11 years. To be clear, there is no social licence from farmers and farming communities for this abuse. I know this because I meet with my farming communities.</para>
<para>I return to that great irony—more EPBC referrals for renewables projects than mining. Are the Greens chaining themselves to farm gates, urging that we lock the gate against wind turbines and the blanketing of pristine bushland with solar panels and transmission lines? No; they're not. They're too busy raging against Israel. The farmers in electorates like Mallee are locking their gates and protesting outside parliaments, and I pay tribute to these farmer custodians of the land. They care about the continuing health of the land for the birds, the snakes, the bats and other species. The Nationals are listening to the custodians of the land, to the farmers and community members who want to continue their generational food and fibre businesses with a globally small but nonetheless rapidly falling carbon footprint. Farmers care about their local environments, landscapes and the long term future—make no mistake.</para>
<para>There are already state laws requiring environmental factors to be considered, such as the environmental effects statement or EES process in Victoria. In fact, an increasing number of wind turbine projects, transmission lines and mining for battery minerals are being referred to EES processes as well. At last check, there were five renewable projects under EES in my state since January 2022. Of the six mining projects under EES, three are for critical minerals such as battery resources. I hasten to add all three are in my electorate. So let's be very clear about nature positive. The jury is well and truly out about how genuinely nature positive renewables and critical mineral projects are. Don't get me wrong—if they tick the truly environmental boxes and if there is genuine social licence, go for it. That is not what we are seeing in Victoria. The Albanese Labor government wants to step over the current state based environmental assessment processes and create another layer of bureaucracy through this bill. You just can't get enough bureaucracy.</para>
<para>Labor's new federal environmental protection agency, the EPA, will be given $120 million to operate, but I note that Minister Plibersek's so-called war on feral cats has failed to fire a shot, with not one cent allocated in the May budget, despite the minister saying in September, 'If we don't act now, our native animals won't stand a chance,' saying that cats kill six million animals every night in Australia. By contrast the former coalition government announced $724,547 in funding in Mallee alone under our Threatened Species Strategy Action Plan to improve feral cat and fox management and to reduce their impact on the south-eastern red-tailed black cockatoo and the black-eared miner. Labor waved the white flag on feral cats but will create a double-up EPA, administering the same laws that Professor Graeme Samuel, after he reviewed the EPBC Act, described as 'woefully inadequate'. He certainly didn't recommend the EPA this government intends to create today.</para>
<para>This bill creates both the EPA and a new organisation called Environment Information Australia; however, neither currently have federal laws for them to actually oversee. After two years of selectively consulting in budget-lock-up-style consultations and hiding her plans from the Australian public, Minister Plibersek proposes using taxpayer funds to hire more bureaucrats, without any legislative machinery for them to operate. Labor want to double-down on the dual state and federal Aboriginal heritage processes and duplicate the environmental approval process as well. By contrast, the former coalition government created the one-stop-shop approach to approvals.</para>
<para>During the first five quarters of the coalition government, there were 269 EPBC Act referrals for assessment, and 94.8 per cent of them were decided on time. During the first five quarters of the Albanese Labor government, there were 280 EPBC Act referrals for assessment, and only 79.6 per cent of them were decided on time. Yet earlier this month Minister Plibersek claimed that 51 EPBC approvals for renewable projects since the May 2022 election were somehow more than the coalition approved in nine years in power. In April the minister tried to claim she had approved onshore wind projects three times faster than the former coalition government; however, industry analysis indicated that the minister had approved 10 offshore windfarms in 23 months in office, the same if not fewer than the number approved by the Morrison government over the same period of time—and let's not forget COVID. The minister might want to get her spin right before making outlandish claims.</para>
<para>The coalition government was heading towards accrediting states and territories to make more assessments in accordance with new national standards recommended by the Samuel review. We need to reduce unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy. In keeping with localism and federalism, rather than more centralised power and funding to Canberra, we should make those closest and most accountable for poor decision-making determine project outcomes that consider local impacts and, crucially, social licence.</para>
<para>When it comes to approvals under a future-changed EPBC Act, let's bear in mind the mentality that environmental bureaucracies see 'the changing climate', or emissions, as a 'mandatory consideration in environmental planning'. This green bureaucracy wants to embed climate considerations in all roles and functions of government. We are seeing it spread further afield, beyond environmental agencies, to agencies like the National Health and Medical Research Council, who are telling Australians that meat is bad for their personal health because it has a carbon footprint!</para>
<para>The minister is threatening monetary fines of up to $780 million and jail terms for businesses judged to have breached environmental obligations, enforced through stop-work orders and audits. Labor is scaring off job-creating investment and destroying Australia's productivity. Worse still, this bill will allow significant ministerial powers to be transferred to an unelected and unaccountable EPA CEO, who will be able to act with near impunity—so, too, the head of Environment Information Australia. We already know that, with weak ministers in the cabinet, bureaucracies are already using a snake's nest of power and resources to push their own agendas. Through this bill the EPA would be empowered to issue far-reaching environmental protection orders and huge new penalties on businesses.</para>
<para>Added to this complex mix and cost of delaying projects is the role of activist groups like the Environmental Defenders Office, or EDO, which stages lawfare against resource projects. Australia is the second-largest target in the world, behind the USA, for environmental lawfare. We are seen as a soft target. The EDO's reputation has been severely tarnished by its conduct over songlines in the Northern Territory in the Santos Barossa case and over allegations of witness coaching. Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, said in May that there will be no funding going to the EDO under a coalition government. The EDO relies on state and territory government grants and philanthropy, underpinned by $8.2 million over four years from the Albanese Labor government, continuing Labor's protection of economic vandals.</para>
<para>In conclusion, these bills only add more cost, bureaucracy and red tape, enabling a Labor government agenda that is anything but positive for nature. Labor are railroading regional communities for renewable projects that do more harm than good. Yet again, Labor robs regions to buy votes in the inner cities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill is an important part of the Albanese Labor government's nature-positive plan, and, importantly, part of delivering on our election commitment to implement strong environmental law reforms in line with the Samuel review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.</para>
<para>These national environmental laws are a critically important part of the way that governments protect our natural environment here in Australia, and an important part of how we approach the climate crisis. The reforms of these laws are something that, since I was elected in 2019, has been a key part of my focus as a member of parliament and something that my constituents have been really engaged with. It's a topic which I have also spoken about in the parliament many times. In the last term, when the Samuel review was released, I, like many of my constituents, was dismayed by the response of the Morrison government through then minister Sussan Ley. At the time I said the Samuel review provides a great opportunity for this parliament to act to better protect the environment, but of course it took the election of a Labor government to ensure that that opportunity was grasped.</para>
<para>Because of course it is the Labor Party that has delivered all of the significant environmental reforms of Australia's history. It was Labor in the 1970s, under Gough Whitlam, who appointed the nation's first federal environment minister, Moss Cass. Also during the Whitlam government, Australia also saw the nation's first environmental impact inquiry, which established that sand mining on Fraser Island was untenable. One of the core tenants of Whitlam was embedding environmental outcomes while building the nation and its prosperity—something that is not mutually exclusive.</para>
<para>In the 1980s, Bob Hawke's Labor government saved the Franklin River from being dammed. It was his government that kicked off Landcare, which is such an important part of the protection of our natural environment to this day. They put in place protections for the Daintree, Kakadu and 170,000 hectares of forest in the Tasmanian World Heritage area. Hawke's government reformed the native forest industry and protected the most important old-growth forests across the country. Under Hawke and Labor, Australia led the international push in 1989 for the prohibition of mining in Antarctica, ensuring to this day that that continent remains a serene place of natural beauty, peace and science. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, Labor built the largest network of marine national parks in the world and set Australia on a path to a low-carbon future.</para>
<para>In this term of parliament, we've introduced the world-leading Nature Repair Market to foster environmental stewardship and nature repair around the nation. We've reformed the water trigger to protect our incredibly valuable water resources. And we have increased the reach of our environmental protection laws so the minister must assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, which trigger our environmental laws.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gippsland Electorate: Hospitals</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe in localism. It's the very simple idea that the wisdom of local people should be respected, that local people should have more control over what happens in their local areas as much as possible. That's why I've written to the Prime Minister, urging him to intervene in a Victorian government plan to merge country hospital boards, which will inevitably lead to reduced access to services in smaller Gippsland towns. This is Victorian Labor's plan to silence local voices who might have the audacity to even complain about the budget cuts to health services in their communities. Gippslanders are very proud of their hospitals, and volunteers work hard to fundraise because they see it as a vital local service. We expect local people to have a say in how their health services are delivered.</para>
<para>Why have I written to the Prime Minister? Because the Commonwealth provides the majority of the funding for local hospital services, and this proposal has nothing to do with improving patient care. The federal government will be expected to pick up the bill and provide the health services when this city focused plan goes pear shaped. Given there has been no consultation with local MPs, councils or community members, I want to know whether the federal government is also involved in this ill-considered plan by Victorian Labor.</para>
<para>The board members and senior staff of health service providers in my community have been required to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to be briefed by Melbourne based bureaucrats about the reckless changes to their regional health services. This will rob communities of local autonomy and lead to a dumbing down of regional communities by removing the capacity for residents to serve on their local health boards.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Julian Assange is free. Only a few hours ago, following a brief court process on the island of Saipan, Mr Assange was able to walk free after 14 years without liberty. He is free now to return home and free to stand as an Australian citizen on Australian soil, maybe to walk barefoot on an Australian beach, but most importantly to hug his wife and children and to be with his family and friends.</para>
<para>The momentum towards this incredibly welcome and just outcome has been building over the last couple of years, but, without doubt, the decisive element has been the approach of this Australian government and the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The PM and the foreign minister have worked carefully and steadily with clarity and resolution in pressing for an end to the incarceration of Julian Assange. Today that long-awaited outcome came true.</para>
<para>I'm glad to have shared the work of the parliamentary group that's fought for Julian's freedom. I acknowledge all the parliamentarians who have been part of that effort, demonstrated by the letter signed by 63 members and senators that was published in the <inline font-style="italic">Washington </inline><inline font-style="italic">Post</inline> last year and by the motion that was supported in this chamber only a few months ago.</para>
<para>I say to all Australians who have lifted their voice in support of Julian Assange: thank you. Activism matters. We hear you. You've made a difference.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New England Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the words just said, but I'll go on to another issue because life moves on.</para>
<para>It was a number of years ago when I first came to parliament that we fought for the extension of Chaffey Dam. They said there was no point to it. They said we couldn't get the environmental approvals through. But we managed to fight for it and deliver it, and it went from 60,000 megs to 103,000 megs. If we hadn't done that, the city of Tamworth would have run out of water. Since that we've done the extension of Quipolly Dam, the Dungowan pipeline, the Wildcroft storage and the Tenterfield augmentation plant in Urbenville.</para>
<para>Going back to the city of Tamworth, a fast-growing city: I was told the other day we have a new subdivision of 2,300 houses—that's a further 10,000 people moving into the city of Tamworth. We need more water. We had the fantasia of costings put forward by the Labor government—that it was going to cost $1.3 billion to extend Dungowan Dam. We never got it tabulated as to exactly how they came up with that money, but now we have no solution whatsoever. They've left us high and dry. They talk about recycling water. That leaves saline brine. Where on earth are we going to put that? They talk about buying water licences. What's the point when there's a drought? Keep it. It runs out. They've got to grasp the nettle and make sure that the city of Tamworth gets a future water supply.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dunkley Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELYEA</name>
    <name.id>309484</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Dunkley is home to many older Australians, with 27,000 residents over 65 years of age. Many of these people are important contributors to our great community.</para>
<para>Last week I followed in the tradition of the late Peta Murphy, hosting my first two seniors morning teas at the Frankston Bowls Club, thanks to Craig and to Langwarrin Public Hall. With musical performances with students such as Marli from Frankston High School and the Elisabeth Murdoch College band, it was delightful to catch up with all the Dunkley residents and hear their thoughts about the future of our community and the nation. Your voices are important to me.</para>
<para>I also attended the June meeting of the Frankston Combined Probus Club, who received funding through the 2023-24 volunteers grant. These Probus members are hardworking, community-minded people who care about the community. It was a real joy to present some of their members with fuel cards as a 'thank you' for all their volunteer work. At these events, local residents spoke to me about issues such as climate change, particularly the opposition's expensive and risky plan to build nuclear facilities. Other concerns were raised with me, including ensuring responsible and affordable housing in Dunkley, homelessness, mental health issues and skills shortages. Thank you to all of those who took their time to meet me.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to put on the record my deep concern about the destructive and destabilising behaviour of the Iranian government and to call on the government to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. Last year, I joined protesters outside Parliament House calling out the appalling treatment of women in Iran, and I wrote to the foreign minister asking the government to apply Magnitsky sanctions and to list the IRGC as a terrorist group.</para>
<para>Despite international condemnation, the dangerous behaviour of the Iranian government has continued, and it extends well beyond terrorising its own citizens. Not only has Iran launched an attack on Israel; it has been a sponsor of terror groups like the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas, whose 7 October attacks killed more Jews than on any day since the Holocaust. Israelis and Palestinians alike are still suffering the terrible repercussions of that attack, and the Iranian government must be held accountable for the role it has played in promoting terror in the Middle East. Canada recently joined the US in listing the IRGC, and this designation was also recommended last year by a Senate committee.</para>
<para>This listing would send a strong and important message of Australia's commitment to fighting terrorism at home and abroad. I recognise there are questions about whether this designation is currently possible under Australian laws. If legislation changes are required, I urge the government to bring these forward urgently and make this listing of a terrorist organisation possible.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>MakerSpace</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to pay tribute to MakerSpace, an Army initiative providing a place for education in innovative approaches, creative thinking and agile methodologies. This is about soldiers solving soldier's problems. MakerSpace improves the Army's ability to think differently to challenge the status quo and innovate in preparation for the Army's future challenges. It equips all ranks and APS members with non-traditional problem solving skills, and it is helping to improve retention. 'MakerSpace is now my reason for coming to work,' one private at the 1st Brigade in Darwin remarked. A corporal in 9th Brigade observed: 'The reason I like utilising the MakerSpace facility is because it gives me the time, freedom and knowledge to be more than just a basic infantry soldier. It allows me to utilise my creative side and come up with fixes and improvements for equipment that we can make better for the greater Defence Force.'</para>
<para>Over 25,000 soldiers have joined MakerSpace so far, and they have reported 95 per cent user satisfaction. The organisation also employs 12 veterans. I want to congratulate MakerSpace for its phenomenal work both in Darwin and around the country and to really encourage soldiers. I also saw a US Marine utilising the facility, which is great for the alliance, as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goldstein Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Suburban Rail Loop is a project of significance and concern to the Goldstein community. The aim is to upgrade public transport and provide new housing as Melbourne grows. What worries me and my constituents is that we may end up with the housing and maybe the transport but not the services to go with them, especially with Victoria's dire budget. According to current plans, the SRL will transform Goldstein, adding 30,000 to 40,000 residents to Bayside. For perspective, Wangaratta, with a population of about 30,000, offers services, hospitals, medical clinics, childcare centres and schools. Goldstein will need that too. Will we get them? Public transport is a public good. With more Victorians using it for home, school and leisure, our infrastructure should keep up. But we must fully and properly consider what that means for this community and for new residents who must be supported by suitable amenities, as well as by promised infrastructure. I agree with Bayside Council that the SRL must deliver what residents need, not what governments want, protect community amenities and ensure easy transit within and beyond the community. I've spoken to state and federal ministers, raising these and other questions. So far from the federal government, in effect—crickets. We have yet to receive satisfactory answers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week we saw the Leader of the Opposition come up with this peculiar thought bubble, which is gambling Australia's energy and economic security, promising untested, uncosted and experimental nuclear reactors across the country. It just doesn't stack up economically. That's what we've heard. That's what the figures are showing. People that know me know I'm not some ideological warrior opposing this. In fact, I would support it if it stacked up economically, but it just doesn't. It simply cannot compete with wind and solar. It just can't. It's too expensive and that's the problem.</para>
<para>The opposition has to come clean with the Australian public to say that this will not bring prices down for energy. In fact, it will increase prices. We've seen the United States, in the state of Georgia, generate expansion for nuclear reactors. That has expanded and blown out in costs. It's at around the $17 billion mark. That money has to be recouped. That capital that's going to go in, that they're proposing, has to be recouped. Guess who's going to pay for that? People who are paying their energy costs. Every mum and dad out there will pay increased costs with this bat crazy idea that they've come up. Now the opposition wants to add these costs to the energy bills of Australians. You've got to recover the costs of the capital. There's no such thing as a magic pudding. If there were, we'd have no problems in the world. We will oppose this particular idea.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cook Electorate: E-bikes</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many local residents have been in touch with me about the use of e-bikes in my electorate. These bikes are capable of going 50 kilometres an hour without pedalling. They're ridden down pedestrian footpaths and in pedestrian-only places like Cronulla mall. They're causing bad injuries. Only three weeks ago a three-year-old boy in my electorate had his leg clean broken in half.</para>
<para>This is not about banning then. It's about: how can we use them safely? Currently, there's no minimum age requirement for New South Wales. Also, primary school children can ride them as fast as 50 kilometres an hour down the footpath. It's also about importation. Bikes over 250 kilowatts cannot be imported. But we have many bikes in my electorate that are 500 kilowatts that are being imported without any importation licences or importation approvals. This requires the government to enforce federal laws.</para>
<para>Lastly, there needs to be education. I don't blame the kids. These bikes look like fun, but they need to be educated on legal bikes and how to use them safely. Active transport and e-bikes can be a great thing but only if they're used safely. That's why, this Friday on 28 June at 10:30 am, I am hosting a community forum for locals in my electorate with e-bikes, with the Sutherland Shire Council and with the peak body cycling organisation, We Ride Australia. Please see the link in my Facebook and on my website.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fraser Electorate: St Albans Dinamo Soccer Club</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I visited the St Albans Dinamo Football Club last weekend. This is a club with a long and storied history, having produced many A-League players and, indeed, Socceroos. The club is approaching its 50th anniversary, representing the achievements of one of the most prominent postwar migrant communities in my electorate.</para>
<para>One of the topics that came up during our conversation was the upcoming game between Croatia and Italy. Can I begin my contribution by offering my condolences on the result—a 98th-minute miracle for Italy. But the other topic of our conversation was one I wanted to raise today—not a commiseration but a congratulations. St Albans Dinamo is an incredibly successful club with over 30 teams. There are, in other words, hundreds of players, many of whom are juniors' teams and many of which are girls' and women's teams. The club is giving young people in the area a positive outlet, an opportunity to experience camaraderie, to learn teamwork and to celebrate their culture.</para>
<para>This success can be a double-edged sword. The large number of players is putting pressure on their access to pitches. Their pitches are currently full and, indeed, often overused. It is putting a strain on changerooms, particularly for women and girls—a phenomenon experienced by so many football clubs in my electorate—and has created a need for refurbishment of their facilities.</para>
<para>I want to congratulate the club on all that it has done over recent years to boost its membership, particularly of women and young people. And I commit myself to working with them as they build on their achievements to give access to sport and a sense of community to ever-greater numbers of young people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jeffcoat, Miss Leesa, AM</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier this month, I had the privilege of celebrating the 23-year tenure of Leesa Jeffcoat AM as Diocesan Director Catholic Education Rockhampton. After more than two decades, Leesa made the decision to retire. Over the course of her impressive career, Leesa has overseen the opening of 10 kindergartens, four primary schools and a secondary school. More than 75,000 students have gone through the schools which Lisa has overseen during her time as diocesan director.</para>
<para>Leesa has served the education system in Rockhampton not only as a director but as a teacher and student of faith. I have always admired those dedicated to our community through the nurturing of our region's young people. Leesa stated that she doesn't see this as an end point in her professional career, but rather that it signals the start of a new direction in her life which is full of exciting possibilities. Leesa has received a plethora of congratulations from many of her colleagues in the Catholic education system, including Bishop Michael McCarthy. The bishop thanked Leesa for her leadership, a skill which she has used well to nurture the youth of our area through faith based care.</para>
<para>I enjoyed speaking with Leesa at her farewell and celebrating her championing of students in rural and remote areas. One of our greatest inequalities in this nation is geography. It's important we support the education of rural and regional kids who don't get the same opportunities as those in urban areas. I congratulate Leesa Jeffcoat on her service to Catholic Education Rockhampton and I wish her well for the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>From 1 July, just five days away, everyone in my community will benefit from the work our government is doing to support them with their cost-of-living pressures. When I think about what this might mean in Jagajaga I think about someone, let's call her Jess, and what it might mean for her. Jess is 37 years old, she lives in Watsonia and she works as a disability support worker. She's got a four-year-old daughter and has another baby on the way. From 1 July, someone like Jess will receive a tax cut of $783. She's one of the 77,000 taxpayers in Jagajaga receiving a tax cut from our government's cost-of-living tax cuts. She will benefit from $300 in power bill relief, and every single household in Jagajaga will get this support.</para>
<para>Jess is one of the 2.6 million workers on award wages who will benefit from a much-needed wage rise on 1 July, backed by our government. And, with her baby on the way, she and her partner will benefit from two more weeks of paid parental leave from our government's reforms which start on 1 July. She and her family will also have access to cheaper medicines from 1 July, as our government is freezing the PBS copayment and adding more medicines to the PBS. This is real cost-of-living relief for people like Jess and for people right across my community. Our government understands that people are doing it tough and we're here to support them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Berowra Electorate: Westleigh Park</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The New South Wales Minns Labor government stands condemned for ripping $36 million out of our local community. In 2018, the New South Wales coalition government provided $40 million to Hornsby council for the construction of Westleigh Park. This project is a much-needed hub for northern Sydney, with biking courses, sports fields and communal green spaces. Local AFL, rugby, cricket and mountain-biking clubs, as well as soccer clubs, campaigned for, and awaited eagerly, six new fields. Our community is crying out for more recreation spaces and sports facilities, especially as the New South Wales government's ill-considered housing policy rapidly overwhelms existing infrastructure in our area. Hornsby council was undertaking comprehensive planning and in-depth community consultation. All was progressing well, and construction was due start later this year. That was until the residents of Westleigh, local sporting groups and Hornsby council were blindsided by the Minns government ripping $36 million out of Westleigh Park.</para>
<para>Chris Minns's $36 million money grab means no cycling tracks, no walking paths, no exercise spaces, no playing fields and no playgrounds for Westleigh. It means years of wasted planning, consultation and progress. This is a complete abandonment of the hopes, hard work and needs of the Hornsby area by the Labor government, which treats my people like dirt. The forthcoming Hornsby by-election is our chance to send a message to Chris Minns and the Labor Party that they can't get away with treating our community with contempt.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians with existing HELP debts and current students, like my son Stanley, have all welcomed Labor's decision to change the way their debt is indexed and to fix last year's CPI indexation lurch of 7.1 per cent. One person with a HELP debt who contacted my office said, 'The relief is incredibly welcome.' Another said: 'Thanks for listening to uni students and alumni across the country. Changing the way student debt is calculated benefits all students for years to come.' This decision reflects both Labor's core value of fairness and also our commitment to education and the transformative opportunities it brings.</para>
<para>That's why, shortly after we took government, we commissioned the Australian Universities Accord, the first wide-ranging review of the tertiary education sector in 15 years. The final report was released in February and is a blueprint for a better and fairer higher education system. A key part of this is capping the HELP indexation rate at the lower of either the consumer price index or wage price index. Backdated to 1 June 2023, it means three million Australians will have their debt cut.</para>
<para>I'll leave my last words to one of my constituents, who said: 'When last year's indexation hit, I was rightfully upset. This is going to make a such big impact in my life. It's great all parts of the government are focused on ways to help us with the cost of living.' Can I say particularly that my son Stanley appreciates HELP, because when he found out that he's paying it he suddenly focused his attention at university and is now passing everything!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin Plan</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have an important announcement. The member for Sydney will walk in here in a few minutes with a brand new title: the worst water and environment minister this parliament has ever seen. And it has been achieved by delivering a magnificent trifecta, managing to upset her stakeholders, her own side of politics and the Greens all in the space of one week.</para>
<para>Last Thursday, the minister was headline act at the Murray-Darling Basin's annual conference, when 300 people gathered in Albury to hear her plans for the two million people who live and work in the basin. What did we get? A TV screen with a three-minute video on removing water from agriculture, and, 'Oh, and here's $300 million to keep quiet.' Senator Hanson-Young this week derided the same minister for withholding funding and killing off the Coorong. And after cancelling the last two water ministerial council meetings, the gold medal comes because this Friday's gathering also won't be in person, and won't last very long. It's a one-hour teleconference—one single hour.</para>
<para>But don't let just me applaud the minister's work. Here's her Victorian counterpart, Minister Harriet Shing: 'We're talking about Australia's food bowl. Farmers are going to be suffering real and irreparable costs and damage as a result of this legislation.' That's Victoria's Labor water minister.</para>
<para>In this country, actions speak louder than words. I desperately want to see action from this Prime Minister. Perhaps he can do us an extra favour over the break—<inline font-style="italic">(Time expired.)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, I joined the education minister, Jason Clare, and Chief Executive of the Australian Academy of Science, Anna-Maria Arabia, to launch the reimagined Primary Connections and reSolve primary science and mathematics resources at Hughes Primary School. I'd especially like to thank the principal, Nina McCabe, and the wonderful students from Hughes for welcoming us into their beautiful school, one of our great ACT public schools.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity to join the classes in some really engaging science experiments, which was a great way to start the day. These new maths and science resources are free for every school across Australia. They will ensure that every student has access to quality maths and science resources and they will help support teachers to inspire students to fall in love with STEM subjects and make the breakthroughs of the future.</para>
<para>The Australian Academy of Science has a long history of providing innovative and quality scientific education resources since 1967, and we are so lucky to have the academy right here on our doorstep in Canberra alongside our great schools. This announcement brought together two things close to my heart and the heart of our government: science and public education.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to working with state and territory governments to put all schools on a pathway to full and fair funding at 100 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. I'm proud that here in the ACT, on average, our schools are already achieving that. I'm proud that our ACT government is prioritising that and proud to be part of a government that believes in public education.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Headen, Mr Peter</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to give a shout-out to Peter Headen, or 'Heado', as he's affectionately known, in Warrnambool in south-west Victoria. He has been involved in radio broadcasting for 40 years, and he's retiring at the end of this month. What he has done for the local community has been quite extraordinary. Not only has he had his own radio shows, but Heado has been part and parcel of every single major community event—and never more so than when we lobbied and asked for an integrated cancer-care centre in Warrnambool. Heado, through his advocacy and through the local community, made sure we got delivered that wonderful project, which is now saving many lives. He has also hosted the 3YB marquee at the wonderful May Racing Carnival for three days, year upon year upon year, and many people have enjoyed the wonderful hospitality—maybe some even a little too much.</para>
<para>Heado has been an absolute legend. I found out today that we nearly lost him, because he'd thought about being a librarian. I don't think he would have made a great librarian, but he has been a fantastic radio broadcaster and a fantastic manager of the local radio station. Heado, enjoy your retirement, and it's wonderful to know that you're going to continue delivering for our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I woke up this morning, I looked at my phone and it dawned on me that we are so close to 1 July. And that's important for so many reasons. Firstly, it's Territory Day, and I'm sure our friends in the Northern Territory will have a good time. For dad-joke experts like me, it's International Joke Day on 1 July, and I'll be diligently observing that. And, for the Bob Marley fans, it's International Reggae Day. But do you know what the most important thing about 1 July is? It will see Australians get much-needed cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>I understand the pressures that people in Bennelong are facing with the cost of living. I've fought hard for broad cost-of-living relief, and that has been the centrepiece of the government's latest budget. From 1 July, every taxpayer in Bennelong will get a tax cut. That's 92,000 people. A household with one person on $120,000 and another on $80,000 will get $4,358 in tax cuts. That's straight into their family budgets.</para>
<para>On top of that, we will expand on last year's energy relief to ensure that everyone gets support. From 1 July, every household in Australia will get $300 off their energy bill.</para>
<para>Whether you live in Greenwich or Gladesville, Carlingford or Chatswood West, the cost of living is impacting everyone. Every taxpayer will get a tax cut, and every household will get energy relief. Bring on 1 July.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Bring on the election next year, in 2025, because you can't believe a word this mob says. Whether it's the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy or the Treasurer here—the whole lot of them can't be trusted. They said, at the last election: 'My word is my bond;' 'We won't touch superannuation;' 'We won't touch stage 3 tax cuts;' and, 'Your electricity bills will come down by $275.' And—for the people in the gallery—what's happened? Every single one of your bills has gone up by a thousand dollars. Yet this mob and this bloke said, 'a $275 reduction'. This election will be about trust, and they cannot be trusted. When they open their mouths, they cannot be believed.</para>
<para>The reality is that their plan to reduce costs for electricity is: renewables, only. They have a plan—not for solar on rooftops, but to run out 58 million Chinese-made solar panels; 3,500 new industrial wind farms, made in China; and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, at a cost between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, independently assessed by government and industry.</para>
<para>The coalition has a plan for renewable and modern, nuclear power—emissions-free—that will reduce power costs. They'll not go up.</para>
<para>When it comes to 2025, this Labor government can't be trusted.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Order. There's far too much noise.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Paterson will cease interjecting. I'd like to hear from the member for Hawke.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The countdown is well and truly on. In just five days, Labor's tax cuts will take effect, delivering some much-needed relief—a big tax cut—to every single Australian taxpayer. From next week, the average household in Hawke with two full-time workers will save $2,856 a year. For the benefit of those opposite, that's 238 bucks a month, 110 bucks a fortnight, or $55 every single week.</para>
<para>Now, it's not just tax cuts that are coming through. You see, the Albanese Labor government wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's why next week we'll see minimum wage earners receive a pay rise of 3.75 per cent. For those on the national minimum wage, that's more than 1,700 bucks a year. In fact, since Labor came to government, minimum wage earners' annual pay has increased by almost 7½ grand.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's economic plan is delivering higher wages, lower taxes and more cost-of-living relief for Australian households doing it tough. While the Liberals just want people to work longer for less, the Albanese Labor government's plan is ensuring that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Solomon Islands: Parliamentary Delegation</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today, on the floor of the parliament, is the Hon. Jeremiah Manele MP, the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, and an accompanying delegation of ministers from the Solomon Islands. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you, sir.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I also want to warmly welcome my friend the newly elected Solomon Islands Prime Minister, Jeremiah Manele, and his delegation to the Australian parliament today. Prime Minister, we're honoured that you have chosen Australia for your first official visit.</para>
<para>We also very warmly welcome the fact that, on your election, you recently said Australia remains Solomon Islands' partner of choice and that you want to see our relationship grow to new heights. Australia is with you on both counts, and I know that I speak on behalf of everyone in this chamber to say that that is the case. I note that this morning you also met with our senior cabinet ministers, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and will meet with other people while you are here in Australia.</para>
<para>Australia and the Solomon Islands are close friends with connected futures. We share not only a vision for the Pacific that is peaceful, safe and prosperous but a common determination to act on climate change. We also share a commitment to the democratic values on which this House of Representatives stands and which, recently, with your historic joint elections that were held in April, Australia was pleased to play a role in supporting that important electoral process.</para>
<para>Thousands of Solomon Islanders have participated in the PALM scheme, benefitting families and Australian employers and linking our communities on a deeply personal level. We continue to work together on policing and defence, including through the enduring partnership with the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. Today, in the meeting that we had in our cabinet room, the AFP Commissioner indicated that the two boats about to be delivered to the Solomon Islands are purpose built and they will also be able to be maintained there in the Solomon Islands, making sure that they are the most effective way of delivering support for you.</para>
<para>We take pride in our community connections too, on an individual basis but also as members of the Pacific family. Australia firmly believes that the Pacific family must look after its own security needs. We believe very firmly that the Pacific Islands Forum is the pre-eminent body in which we come together and discuss our common interests, our common future and our common security needs. The discussions that we had today were very constructive.</para>
<para>Since your election, the Deputy Prime Minister has visited you, as has the foreign minister and Minister Conroy, who will be travelling with you tonight. Unfortunately, I think you have a Blues supporter here and a Maroons supporter over there. We won't be able to go with you this evening, but we wish you well at the MCG tonight in what will be an important Australian cultural event known as State of Origin. I note, Prime Minister, your diplomatic skills were on show when you indicated that you will be neutral this evening. That is a wise thing.</para>
<para>Prime Minister, our nations are so close. We share the Pacific Ocean as our home—certainly on this side of the great big continent that we have. We also share a future agenda. I look forward to working with you on that and, on behalf of the Australian parliament, welcome.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I want to thank the Prime Minister for his fine words and extend a very warm welcome to our most honoured guests here in the chamber today. Prime Minister Manele, to you and to the foreign minister, as well as the delegation, it was an honour to meet with you earlier today. Thank you very much for prioritising your visit here to Australia. It means an enormous amount to us, and it's a continuation, of course, over many decades, of the relationship between the Solomon Islands and Australia. You are family to us, and we very much appreciate the engagement that you have undertaken with us.</para>
<para>There is an opportunity, regardless of any change of politics on either side of the relationship, for a continuation of an abiding friendship that must always continue between our two nations. I want to say thank you very much for the advice that you gave us in relation to the mobility scheme and the way in which that benefits your economy and the way in which we can work together to make sure that there's not a brain drain but is, nonetheless, a transfer of skills, a remittance and an engagement on a people-to-people link. That is very important for our economy, it's important for yours and we hope that that can be a strengthened and deepened part of the relationship.</para>
<para>I want to endorse the words of the Prime Minister and—as I conveyed during the course of our bilateral meeting, Prime Minister—we very much believe in the Pacific Island Forum, the pre-eminent body. We also very much believe in the way in which the Pacific family can come together and can work out differences, can provide that security and the economic underpinning of the continued growth of both of our nations, as well as many of our dear friends and partners within the region. I know that the work of the Australian Federal Police continues and that is important. It was when we were in government and it is under this government. It will be an enduring feature of the relationship into the future as well. That is important because the Solomon Islands is a peaceful nation. It very much has a focus on domestic stability, and we want to be a partner with you in that regard, and in many other ways as well.</para>
<para>I know that, in your first speech as Prime Minister, you said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I will discharge my duties diligently and with integrity. I will at all times put the interest of our people and country above all other interests.</para></quote>
<para>They are commendable words, and I want to say thank you very much for your commitment. It demonstrates the foundation of successful leadership, when you make that commitment in your opening remarks. I want you to please go away from this place knowing that, on a bipartisan basis, we speak as one. I hope you can convey the message back to your cabinet that when you meet in Australia there is no difference between government and opposition, in terms of the strength of the messages that we've conveyed to you and the conversations that we've had with you, in a most respectful way, and that we appreciate that very much.</para>
<para>Can I say that tonight, as the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, is one of the cultural highlights in the Australian calendar—the State of Origin game. There's a large part of this parliament, the gallery and the Australian public watching who have no idea what we're talking about, because they're from states who don't follow rugby league as closely as we do. But it is not too late. You were, truly, diplomatic in your presentation, but it is not too late to change allegiance. If that's important to you, I can bring my tie up and we can exchange ties as part of a cultural exchange to further deepen the relationship!</para>
<para>You are a great friend. You are a great supporter of this relationship. You are a most honoured guest and welcome friend here in this parliament.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister spent the first 18 months distracted by touring the world and spending $450 million on the divisive Voice referendum instead of focusing on making economic decisions and putting budgets together to help Australian families—not hurt them. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the cost-of-living pain that Australian families are feeling today?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting. The member for Moreton is warned. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll leave people to draw their own conclusions between the gap that was there of mere seconds of speaking about the importance of a relationship with our neighbours and with the world and that question. He asked me about what we are doing. What we're doing is dealing with cost-of-living pressures, cost-of-living pressures that he has voted against—every single one of them!</para>
<para>Energy price relief: what did he do? He voted against it. The tax cuts for every Australian that will come in on Monday for all 13.6 million taxpayers, he not only said that they should be rolled back—and the opposition said they would reverse it—he said we should go to an election on it. That was how strongly he felt about it before he voted for it.</para>
<para>He voted against cheaper medicines. You know, 60-day dispensing was going to have a devastating impact. Pharmacies were going to close. None of that happened either. He is against fee-free TAFE. Now over 400,000 Australians have already enrolled in fee-free TAFE and made a difference there. Of course, we know that he has opposed wages keeping up with the cost of living. What they did—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister was asked a very broad question regarding a whole range of topics and he is addressing the topics in the question. I will hear the member for Moncrieff on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members should be called by their correct titles, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has repeatedly called the opposition leader 'he'. Members should be addressed by their correct title.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moncrieff is entitled to raise her point of order. She is assisting the House. I will make sure that the Prime Minister is addressing people through their correct titles, and he will address his remarks through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Anything is possible, Mr Speaker, anything is possible on that side. I wasn't aware he was a 'they', but anything is possible. We know from Karen Middleton that not only did they have 22 different energy policies in 10 years but—now we know—they had three different energy policies in one weekend. This is how their climate change denial runs: one mistake in one interview and they walk away from a 2030 target; one slip of the tongue and they just junk it all. They are basing their energy policy—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Lyons will cease interjecting. The Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has had a fair run but, on relevance, Australian households can't afford to pay their mortgages. Small businesses are going broke, and this Prime Minister doesn't have a clue—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. I remind the Leader of the Opposition he is falling into a little bit of a habit of adding extra things during his points of order. You will always be granted a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister needs to make sure his answer is being directly relevant to the question that he was asked, and he has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Mr Speaker. They've come up with the most expensive form of new energy possible. They're basing their energy policy for the next decade on the basis of a mistake in the <inline font-style="italic">Weekend Australian</inline>. The shadow cabinet got rolled by Dennis Shanahan. It's just extraordinary. Well done, Dennis—keep going! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government helping ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians? What measures will come into effect in July? What approaches has the government rejected?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left. The member for Barker will cease interjecting. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition I'm sure was just talking to her colleague next door! I give the call to the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Save him, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Reid for her question. Taking action on the cost of living is, of course, our No. 1 priority, and a whole lot of these measures come in next Monday, making sure that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn, with, importantly, a pay rise for 2.6 million workers on awards. It is not the first pay rise under this government in order to address cost-of-living pressures and not the second; it is the third in just over two years that we've been in office. In addition to that, a tax cut for every single taxpayer will be making sure that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para>
<para>We are also, of course, freezing the costs of PBS medicines. And, from 1 July, the $300 assistance for power bills and $325 for small business will kick in, as well as the additional two weeks of government funded paid parental leave. This week, we announced new rules to make sure families are getting better prices at the supermarket. We are making sure that families and farmers get a fair go, something that those opposite never did in a decade.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, the Leader of the Nationals.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But every step of the way those opposite have said no—no to getting wages moving, no to cheaper medicines, no to power bill relief, no to cheaper child care, no to tax cuts for every taxpayer—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Treasurer and the Leader of The Nationals continue to have a conversation. I can't hear a word that is happening because of the two of you. You're going to cease for the remainder of this answer so I can hear the Prime Minister. He has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They've said no to affordable housing, no to fee-free TAFE, no to a future made in Australia. Now, thanks to the plan for—not quite a plan but the suggestion of—nuclear reactors, the Leader of the Opposition's addiction to saying no has taken a fresh turn: no price tag, no design, no viable sites, no legislation, no to renewables, nowhere to put the waste, no chance of pushing Australians' power bills anything other than up. It's time for Australians to return the favour and say no to this relentless negativity of this opposition leader who has nothing positive to offer.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Core inflation in Australia is high, and it is rising. It is higher than the UK, Canada, New Zealand, the Euro area, the US, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. In stark contrast to Australia, in all of these economies, core inflation is actually falling. Isn't this another example of this Prime Minister's weak leadership letting Australians down?</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Members on my right will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If core inflation were going up—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Treasurer will cease interjecting as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rick Wilson</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It has got a '4' in front of it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for O'Connor, I just said for everyone to cease interjecting. You're warned. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some parts of the premise of that question, once again consistent with the shadow Treasurer, are simply wrong. The fact is that we inherited an inflation rate with a six in front of it. The measures—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Deakin has now been interjecting 10 times, so I will give him one last chance. I'm trying to fix behaviour here, so the member for Deakin won't be interjecting anymore during this answer or any other answers, or he'll be warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is that inflation is lower than what we inherited. The fact is that the measures that we have put in place that have put downward pressure on inflation, such as energy price relief, have had a substantial impact on helping to drive down that inflation. Michele Bullock, the RBA governor, was asked: how is Australia's experience in regard to core inflation since the beginning of this year different or the same to that which has been observed in the US, Canada or the European area? This is what the RBA governor had to say: 'It's a very similar experience.' She went on to say: 'If you look at core inflation and services inflation, in particular, overseas, the experience there is very similar to here.' She went on to say this—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's higher here, Albo!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Hume has asked his question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, but he's not answering the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do not interject for the remainder of this answer; otherwise, you'll be warned and you won't be here to hear any more questions. I'm just going to take the temperature down, and everyone is going to listen to the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She went on to say something that would be unfamiliar to those opposite, which was, 'Fiscal policy has been running a surplus for the past couple of years.' That's something completely foreign to those opposite. She didn't say that the government had produced mugs. She said: 'Fiscal policy has been running a surplus for the past couple of years, so I would say that's been helping the inflation situation.' That is what she very clearly said—unlike the approach of those opposite.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Millions of people around the world, particularly in Australia, are thrilled by the news that Julian Assange has finally been set free and is on his way back home to Australia. Prime Minister, will you join with me in welcoming the end of this long-running saga and Mr Assange's return home to his family?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Clark for his question, and I thank him, along with the parliamentary group co-chaired by the member for Fremantle, for their commitment to this issue that I recognise has involved some members of all political parties in this place, including members of the Liberal Party and the National Party. Julian Assange is on his way home to Australia. A short time ago, a United States court in Saipan accepted a plea agreement between Mr Assange and the United States Department of Justice. Mr Assange has since boarded a flight to Australia and will land in Australia later today. Regardless of your views about his activities—and they will be varied—Mr Assange's case has dragged on for too long. I've said repeatedly that there was nothing to be gained by his continued incarceration, and I am pleased that he is on his way home to Australia to reunite with his family here.</para>
<para>Over the two years since we took office, my government has engaged and advocated, including at leader level, to resolve this. We have used all appropriate channels. This outcome has been the product of careful, patient and determined work, which I am very proud of. The Australian government continues to provide consular assistance to Mr Assange as he returns home, as we do for Australians right around the world. I can confirm that US Ambassador Kevin Rudd and UK High Commissioner Stephen Smith are travelling to Australia with Mr Assange. I thank them for their work and others at the respective embassy and high commission for helping us to reach this conclusion.</para>
<para>This work has been complex, and it has been considered. This is what standing up for Australians around the world looks like. It means getting the job done, getting results, getting outcomes and having the determination to stay the course. I am very pleased that, on this occasion, this has been a successful outcome that I believe Australians, overwhelmingly, did want to see. As I said, they will have different views about the engagement and the activities of Mr Assange, but they will be pleased that this saga has been brought to an end and that he will be able to reunite with his family.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Greater South-East Melbourne Councils</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been advised by the members for Bruce, Dunkley and Chisholm that we have a delegation of representatives from local councils from Greater South East Melbourne, including Councillor Lana Formoso, Councillor Nicky Luo, Councillor Simon Brooks, Councillor Jenna Davey-Burns, Councillor Jack Kowarzik, Councillor Nathan Conroy and Councillor Jude Dwight. Welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gas Industry</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday your government approved a $1 billion Gina Rinehart-backed, koala-habitat-destroying gas project with over 150 new gas wells able to run until 2080. Prime Minister, in the middle of a climate crisis, why back billionaires to open more coal and gas, and will the Prime Minister reverse this decision?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Ryan for her question. As we said yesterday and as we've been saying all along, our government's priority is to get more renewables approved and more renewables into our energy system. The project that was approved yesterday is a largely domestic gas project that will support the manufacture of glass, bricks, cement and food packaging. As for the misinformation about koala habitat, the member for Ryan is absolutely wrong. In fact, one of the conditions of approval for this project is that koala breeding and foraging habitat must be protected.</para>
<para>I think it's very important to say to the member for Ryan and to others who share her concerns that this project, like any large project in Australia, will be measured against the safeguard mechanism. The safeguard laws, the strong climate protection laws that the Greens and most of the crossbench voted for, are how we keep emissions down in Australia and how we actually get to net zero in this country. We can't get to net zero overnight, but we are making extremely strong progress. I spoke in this place yesterday about the number of renewable energy projects that we have already approved—54 renewable energy projects, one every two weeks. On top of these—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The previous environment minister is interjecting about koala habitat. That's pretty rich coming from a government that hid the <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tate of the environment</inline> report because it said that the environment in Australia was bad and getting worse under the leadership of those opposite. Nobody has done less to help the Australian environment than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.</para>
<para>On this proposal and others like it, we will assess every project, project by project, for its environmental impacts. Of course, they will also be assessed against the safeguard mechanism, voted for by those on the crossbench. It was said by the Greens political party's climate and environment spokesperson—I think her quote on this was, 'Under these laws, pollution will now go down, not up.'</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the Albanese Labor government's reliable renewables plan deliver the clean, cheap and resilient energy system that Australians deserve? What policies has the government rejected and why?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my honourable friend for the question. I quote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… renewable energy connected with transmission and distribution, firmed with storage, and backed up by gas-powered generation is the lowest-cost way to supply electricity to homes and businesses as Australia transitions to a net zero economy.</para></quote>
<para>That's a direct quote from the Integrated Systems Plan, released today by AEMO, our market regulator, and which I'll table. It's a detailed, concrete, well-considered plan which has been informed by more than 2,000 consultations and a thousand scenarios. It found that renewables, backed by transmission and storage, are the lowest-cost pathway for the Australian energy system.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That transformation is essential for the Australian economy to enjoy affordable and reliable energy in the future, as well as achieve net zero emissions by 2050.</para></quote>
<para>And the Australian Industry Group has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The 2024 Integrated System Plan is the best roadmap we have to meet our energy needs, …</para></quote>
<para>The Ai Group is right. This is what good policy looks like—well-considered policy based on facts, based on evidence, based on detail and based on research.</para>
<para>And the member asked me about what policies we reject. It's not really a fair fight when you compare the detailed documentation and the consultation which goes into the government's energy policy with the one-page thought bubble we see from those opposite. No costings, no details, no models—no details whatsoever. And we know that the opposition knows the cost. The Leader of the National Party let the cat out of the bag. He said, 'We know what they are, we're just not ready to tell you yet.' It's a surprise! It's a surprise, according to those opposite!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You own this!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We know nuclear power is very expensive, but we also know this: as is the usual case, there are some members opposite who say the quiet bit out loud. They tend to be from the National Party and from Queensland, and I give credit to the honesty of the Queensland National Party. It's not just that nuclear is expensive to build but it's also that to make it work it needs to force out the cheapest form of energy: renewables. The member for Hinkler admitted this. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Clearly, if you have energy generation that works 100 per cent of the time, you would always use that before intermittent wind and solar, …</para></quote>
<para>And Senator Canavan said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What we really need is a greater priority given to electricity that can be provided all the time.</para></quote>
<para>When they release their modelling, will they release how much they'll curtail rooftop solar? How much they'll be telling Australians not to use their rooftop solar? How much they'll be saying that they don't want renewables? The Leader of the National Party, again, said that he's going to cap large-scale renewables.</para>
<para>That's the real intent of this anti-renewable policy. They want to shut down renewable energy investment in this country because of their ideological prejudice against it, because they don't like cheap, renewable energy and because they don't have a real plan for Australia. What they are is a real risk for Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. After two years of Labor's homegrown inflation, food is up by over 11 per cent, rents are up by 14 per cent, electricity is up by over 21 per cent and gas is up by over 22 per cent. Isn't this another example of this Prime Minister's weak leadership letting Australians down?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Hume for his question. As the Prime Minister indicated in his answer a moment ago, you have to be very careful about the facts that the shadow Treasurer puts in his questions. The reason why I'm so grateful to the Prime Minister for letting me answer this question is because it gives me an opportunity to correct some of the facts that the shadow Treasurer has been peddling in the last half an hour or so.</para>
<para>On the first one: if he wants to talk about homegrown inflation then homegrown inflation is nontradeable, and non-tradeable inflation is lower under us than it was under them. And the same is true of headline inflation. Inflation when we came to office, as the Prime Minister rightly said, was 6.1 per cent. Now it is four per cent in the monthly indicator—and that's too high, we're upfront about that. That is too high, but it is much lower than the inflation that we inherited from those opposite.</para>
<para>This answer also gives me the opportunity to point out to the shadow Treasurer that he has now said twice today something which is factually wrong about international comparisons of inflation, and I thought that I would take this opportunity to correct the shadow Treasurer—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume has asked his question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>for making this mistake twice in the last half an hour or so. He said a moment ago in the question to the Prime Minister that core inflation in Canada was going down. Core inflation in Canada is going up. While we're at it, we should tell the shadow Treasurer that core inflation in the euro area is also going up. So that's a reminder.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, the Prime Minister hit the nail on the head a moment ago in his answer—and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, similarly, in the quote that the Prime Minister shared. The governor and the Prime Minister have pointed out that it's not unusual around the world in countries where inflation peaked higher and earlier than it did here in Australia, particularly with these more volatile monthly figures, for the number to bounce around and zigzag on the way down. We saw in the US earlier in the year that inflation went up twice before it started to come down again. As the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Prime Minister have rightly pointed out, our experience in Australia is not materially different from the kind of experience that we are seeing around the world.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So, if the shadow Treasurer is unhappy with inflation at four per cent—as are we—he must have been absolutely filthy at the 6.1 per cent that he presided over. He must have been absolutely furious at the performance of his own government, when they bequeathed us inflation at 6.1 per cent. As I said, inflation in the monthly indicator today edged down in monthly terms, but at four per cent annually it is still too high. We want inflation to be lower and sooner, and that's why our cost-of-living relief, which kicks in on Monday, is so important.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin interjected seven times during that answer. He is now warned. I'd like to hear from the member for Calwell.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What do the latest figures tell us about the fight against inflation and how the Albanese Labor government's economic plan compares to other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the wonderful service of the member for Calwell over a long period of time in this place and thank her for the question as well. As I said a moment ago, we got new inflation data today which showed that inflation edged down in monthly terms. But at four per cent annually it's still too high. We acknowledge that. Of course we need inflation to be lower sooner. I think that's an objective that we all share. But while we acknowledge that inflation is still too high in our economy we also need acknowledge and remember some important facts which have been lost on those opposite. As I said before—as we've said many times—the monthly numbers bounce around. They don't compare the same goods and services. As I said a moment ago, the experience in other countries is that inflation doesn't always moderate in a straight line and that the last mile is the hardest, and that's why we've seen core inflation go up in Canada and in the euro area as well.</para>
<para>Inflation at 4.0 per cent is too high, but it is much lower than the 6.1 per cent that we inherited from those opposite and it is less than half of its peak a couple of years ago. The other important thing that shouldn't be lost on this House is that inflation would be much higher if we were running our budgets and our economy in the irresponsible and wasteful way that those opposite were carrying on in government. When inflation was higher, and rising, they handed down a budget with $40 billion of new spending and no savings. If budgets are such a key determinant of prices in our economy then they failed their own test when they were in government. Now, inflation would be higher still were it not for the cost-of-living policies that they voted against. In the ABS data today, we find out that electricity was up 6½ per cent, but it would have been 14½ per cent without our energy bill relief. Rents were up 7.4, but they would have gone up 9.3 without our rent assistance. It's why our cost-of-living help is so important, it's why it's so warranted, it's why it's so necessary and it's why it's so timely.</para>
<para>On Monday people will start to get a tax cut and energy bill relief; a pay rise—for people on awards; cheaper medicines; and more weeks of PPL. This is how you deliver cost-of-living relief. Not by pushing up energy prices with nuclear reactors. Today's inflation figures were another reminder of the pressures that people are under that we acknowledge and that we are responding to, and another important reminder of just how crucial it is that we help people with the cost of living and that we do that in five days' time in all the ways that we've talked about. At the same time as we turn big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses in a way that the Governor of the Reserve Bank says is helping in the fight against inflation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this economically illiterate Prime Minister, families and small businesses are hurting.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to hear from the Leader of the House, but I do want to deal with this, following on from a couple of weeks ago.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, you made a ruling in response to the Manager of Opposition Business a few weeks ago. That ruling was made at the request of the opposition. You also indicated that if we had questions like this, we'd start looking at just simply going to the next question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On 30 May at 2.19 pm, the Manager of Opposition Business asked me to direct the Treasurer to cease his repeated practice of undignified personal attacks. That was raised by the manager, and I agreed with him at the time that personal reflection on other members shall be considered highly disorderly. In light of that, we're going to continue with the practice from 30 May to ensure that those sorts of remarks aren't made. Out of respect for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I will ask her to begin her question again without that remark and make sure that she's complying with practice and standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister, families and small businesses are hurting, with core inflation having now increased for four consecutive months to 4.4 per cent. As the Reserve Bank Governor said last week, 'groceries, petrol, health, education, rents, insurance, expenses are all going up.' Isn't this another example of this Prime Minister's weak leadership letting Australians down?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is in order. The Minister for Resources will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call and is now going to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That question and the reframing of it says more about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and her character than anything else. Just like we saw on the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition go from a so-called policy announcement—that we know now was actually a mistake that led to them change their position—into a full-scale personal attack.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! We're going to do this in an orderly manner. We don't need comments continually at the Chair. The House comes to order and then we'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance. It was a very tight question about inflation and the Prime Minister's leadership, and the Prime Minister does not have licence to engage in a wideranging trawl over other matters. He should be directed back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I refer you to the multiple rulings by Speaker Smith, where he made clear that if he was letting a question through that was borderline in any way that the rules of relevance were wide open. That ruling was made repeatedly by Tony Smith when he was in the Speaker's chair. This question is exactly in line with all of those precedents.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a series of precedents and decisions by former speakers here. The issue I have with this question is that it wasn't a tight question. It was a very broad question revolving around a whole range of issues regarding the Prime Minister's leadership. If you're going to ask a broad question about someone's leadership and the decisions that they make, and you frame in with a range of topics, of course the Prime Minister is going to be pretty broad in their answer. This is not a question that we've had before about a fact, or a figure, or a yes, or a no. It was a broad statement raising a number of issues. So if we're going to have these types of questions—just as has happened in previous parliaments, including the immediate parliament before this one, where I was a member—you're going to have a very broad answer. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm asked a question about leadership and I'm happy to answer a question about leadership. We know that, for the Leader of the Opposition, any endorsement is the kiss of death. In the pre-selection for the Queensland LNP Senate ticket, he endorsed sitting senator, Gerard Rennick. He wrote a letter of support asking people 'to support Gerard as part of my team'. Rennick is now suing the LNP and Peter Dutton, claiming the party is run in an unprofessional manner.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will use correct terms.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>  He did better. In a three-man race to replace Marise Payne, he backed two of the three horses. They were Zed Seselja and Andrew Constance—not one but two. He put written endorsements in for Zed: 'I have no doubt that if he is re-elected to parliament, Zed will again play a senior role within the coalition.' For Andrew Constance, he said, 'Having been a senior cabinet minister, Andrew has a wealth of policymaking experience.' Well, guess what? He backed two horses in a three-horse race, and the third horse won. The third horse won with Dave Sharma. Then he endorsed Hollie Hughes, but the shadow Treasurer had something else in mind. The shadow Treasurer was out there, helping to knock off one of his own cabinet—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. The member for Barker will cease interjecting. The member for Hume, if you keep going, I won't hear from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on relevance. Australians really are hurting under this government at the moment, and we're talking about—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. We've had a point of order on relevance already. Before the Prime Minister continues, can everyone take their seats. That will help.</para>
<para>One point of order under the standing orders is able to be taken under 'relevance'. Because of the Leader of the Opposition's position, he's always given the call for a point of order. So that point of order has been taken. We've got 23 seconds to go. I will ask the Prime Minister to return to the question so we can move forward through the rest of question time.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was talking about leadership. Hollie Hughes: oblivion. Anne Ruston: knocked off the top of the ticket by Alex Antic, even though she's a senior shadow minister. And, of course, there's the member for Moore up there, who also got his endorsement and lost a ballot 137 to 39.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why is it important to have an energy plan for this critical decade? How does this compare with other approaches, and why is it important to be upfront and honest with the Australian people?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the question from the honourable member for Jagajaga. She asked about our energy plan, and today we've seen AEMO release the Integrated Assistance Plan, which is a concrete, detailed, modelled analysis of what our energy system needs and what our government will deliver. In five days time we will also deliver $300 in energy bill relief to every Australian with an energy bill. All of this is critical. And what else is critical for investment in Australia, for investment in jobs and for investment in our energy system is being part of the international framework of climate and energy. And, of course, an important part of that is being part of the Paris Accord.</para>
<para>What we've seen is a particularly stark comparison in approaches here over the last couple of weeks. Two Saturdays ago, the Leader of the Opposition told the<inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper that he'd rip up the 43 per cent target. Of course, that would put us in breach of the Paris Accord, and put us in the company of Iran, Yemen and Libya. Great investment destinations—Iran, Libya and Yemen. But we now know, from reading in the<inline font-style="italic"> Guardian</inline>, that this was accidental. It takes some doing to accidentally breach an international treaty, but I hand it to the Leader of the Opposition. There was a flurry of phone calls, we now know. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition rang the member for Fairfax and said, 'Honey, I shrank the Paris Accord.' They dealt with the accident that he created.</para>
<para>This is what we get when we get energy policy on the run, and details made up by the Leader of the Opposition. It was just a year ago that the Leader of the Opposition said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I don't support the establishment of big nuclear facilities here at all. I'm opposed to it.</para></quote>
<para>I would hate to see what he would do if he were for it—he announced five of them a couple of weeks ago! When it comes to detail, just in the last two weeks, on five separate public occasions, in five separate interviews, the Leader of the Opposition has said, when asked about waste from nuclear facilities, that with a small modular reactor, you get one 'can of coke' a year worth of waste. I heard it the first time and thought: 'Everybody can make a mistake. Everybody can misspeak once; we won't make an issue out of that.' Five times he said it. What is the real figure, based on analysis from Rolls-Royce, the company the Leader of the Opposition has apparently quoted? It's 12,500 cans of coke a year from a small modular reactor. He was just 12,499 out.</para>
<para>This is what we get when we get a Leader of the Opposition who's not across the detail of this important policy area, who's making it up as he goes along, and who's letting the member for New England and Senator Canavan and the member for Hinkler and the Leader of the Nationals write their energy policy. When you let the Nationals near energy policy in Australia—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Deakin then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will refer to members by their titles. There is far too much noise; it's going to stop right now. The minister has 22 seconds remaining.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When you let the National Party near energy policy, what you get is an anti-renewables policy for this country. You get the most expensive form of energy. You put Australia in the company of Libya, Yemen and Iran. But, apparently, it all happens by accident.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a question for the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, the approval and funding of new drugs and novel medical technologies in this country is too slow. Australians deserve best practice health care, but every week I hear from constituents in my electorate of Kooyong who are struggling to access emerging therapies for serious conditions. Today, on Rare Cancers Awareness Day, what assurance can we offer our constituents that the government is going to improve these processes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kooyong for her question, not only as a member of parliament representing her community but also as—before she entered this place—an esteemed researcher and clinician down in Melbourne, who understands our healthcare system better than most. She knows, as everyone in this place knows, that we have a terrific medicine system in this country, built on the foundation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which gives Australian patients access to cutting-edge, world-best technology at, importantly, affordable prices.</para>
<para>As you know, Mr Speaker, and as everyone here knows, some of the technologies today literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient, but, if listed on the PBS, these will come down to just $31 a script. And the PBS is constantly growing. We've added more than 200 new or expanded listings in just two years.</para>
<para>But the member is right: our health technology assessment systems are old and they are struggling with the pace of technology—this turbo-charged period of discovery that we are lucky enough to be living through right now. This was partly explored through a House of Reps inquiry last term that was chaired by the former member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman, and deputy chaired by the member for Macarthur, but it's been explored even more deeply by the health technology assessments review—the first independent review of our systems in about 30 years.</para>
<para>We know this technology is coming at us at a furious pace. For example, I'm told there are now around seven cell and gene therapies registered with the TGA in Australia. There are almost 4,000 in development, heading our way, and the development of AI is only going to accelerate that process of drug discovery and trials through molecular simulation. I'm told that, already, the first end-to-end AI designed drug is in a phase 2 clinical trial somewhere around the world, and that is just going to accelerate as well.</para>
<para>This review is timely. It is exploring these issues to make sure that our HTA systems, our technology assessment systems, are not just fit for today. We know these technologies are more complex. They're coming at us very quickly. They don't fit neatly into the old categories of a medicine or a diagnostic or a service. They're often quite hybrid technologies, and we do need to build an HTA system that lasts for the next 30 years. The next 30 years are going to make the last 30 years, as extraordinary as they have been, seem pretty pedestrian by comparison, I think we all suspect.</para>
<para>That review has been delivered; it actually landed on my desk this morning. We're going to give it due consideration. It was subject to very deep and broad consultation. It's an important piece of work started by the former government and continued by us, and I look forward to an ongoing discussion in this place and more broadly around the country about how we do exactly what the member for Kooyong's question asked.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister condemned the violent 'river to the sea' chant, Labor Senator Fatima Payman publicly rebuked him and repeated it. Yesterday, Senator Payman crossed the floor to support the Greens' hate-filled campaign to ferment social divisions on Palestine, apparently without consequences. Prime Minister Bob Hawke, when he was leader of the Labor Party, suspended two members for such actions. Every leader since him has stood up and shown strength of leadership. Will the Prime Minister do the same?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I note the regular tracks of members of the LNP to sit on the same side as the government at various times—something that they say is a positive.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'Neil</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And how many MPs have you lost this term, eh?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker is warned. The Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I make this point: 'from the river to the sea' refers to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The problem with 'from the river to the sea' being one state, whether just Israel or just Palestine, is that it denies the existence of the other peoples and denies the need for a two-state solution, which is why I have consistently opposed it.</para>
<para>I have consistently supported two states—Palestine and Israel—living side by side in peace and security, and that is the Australian Labor Party's position, and I'm proud of it. I have consistently opposed the actions from day one of what occurred with the terrorist act on October 7. Hamas committed atrocities and need to be totally condemned. I have also expressed my grave concern at the humanitarian loss in Gaza, including our call for the ground invasion of Rafah to not occur. We warned of what the consequences of that would be. I regret the loss of all innocent life, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian. That is the principled position that I have taken. That is why I have—yesterday, the position that was put forward by Senator Wong in the Senate was a principled one: the need for the Senate to recognise the state of Palestine as a part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace.</para>
<para>It's beyond me why the Greens political party or the Liberal Party or the National Party did not support that position. For the truth is that they did not. That is the appropriate position being put forward. I met with Senator Payman earlier today. She will not be attending the Labor caucus for the rest of this session.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Was that her decision or yours?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hasluck.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Ministers will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister is addressing the question directly. The Prime Minister is directly answering the question. He is mentioning the person you mentioned in your question. It is impossible to take a question on relevance. Resume your seat. Under the standing orders that is not—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will refer to earlier decisions by Speaker Smith on exactly this issue regarding not taking points of order when the Speaker believes the Prime Minister or minister is being directly relevant. Resume your seat. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What I do is show leadership through our united team. What he does is fail to provide any leadership, which is why the kiss of death is endorsed from this block. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. What progress has the Albanese Labor government made on renewable energy approvals? What approaches has the government rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Fraser. I know that he is a strong supporter of the transition to get more renewable energy into our energy grid in Australia. This energy transition is real. It's happening now. We are replacing fossil fuels with cheaper, cleaner renewable energy because that will bring down emissions and it will bring down power prices.</para>
<para>Of course it's a big job, but we are working overtime to catch up on a wasted decade of energy policy under those opposite—22 energy policies, and they didn't land a single one of them. They were warned that 24 coal-fired power stations were closing. They did nothing to replace the energy generation required. They were so anti renewables and so chaotic that they scared investment in renewables offshore.</para>
<para>In contrast, under us, we see a renewable energy boom. In fact, we've already seen, as the minister for energy keeps telling us, a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy in our grid. As environment minister, I am ticking off renewable energy projects at the rate of one a fortnight. I've already ticked off 54 projects. That's enough to power more than three million homes. We're ticking off renewables projects at the rate of seven to one, in comparison with coal and gas projects.</para>
<para>Of course, there is an alternative. We can continue with the transition to renewable energy or we can get distracted again by the nuclear fantasy proposed by those opposite. The Australian Energy Market Operator says, 'The time it would take to design and build nuclear generation would be too slow to replace retiring coal-fired generation.' The Smart Energy Council has told us that their plan would cost $600 billion. We rely on third-party costings because although those opposite tell us they know the cost, they're not prepared to share it with the Australian public. And I'll tell you why. They're hiding it for one reason only: they know that Australian taxpayers don't want to spend $600 billion on nuclear power plants. They'd rather spend that money on hospitals, or roads, or schools or any of the things that need doing in Australia.</para>
<para>Nuclear energy is expensive and it's getting more expensive. Renewables are cheaper, and they're getting cheaper all the time. There is a reason that three million Australian households have elected to put renewable energy—solar panels—on their roofs. They know it brings down prices. That's what we're about. We're about bringing down emissions and bringing down power prices.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in regional Australia and easing the cost-of-living pressures on regional Australians—the ones that they face? What policies has the government rejected for regional Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Paterson for that question—she's an amazing fighter for her local community—the community in Port Stephens, which will now be receiving an extra $3 million under the Roads to Recovery Program, bringing their five-year funding to $6.86 million. That's because on this side of the House we believe in assisting every regional community for better roads, not just some.</para>
<para>In the last two years, I've travelled across Australia and spoken to many communities about the cost-of-living pressures, and it's why this government is taking action. In five days we will see real cost-of-living relief provided to regional Australians, with the average taxpayer receiving $1,888. That is how to deliver cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up power prices with nuclear reactors. On this side of the House, we know that power prices are a serious issue for regional Australians. That's why we're working hard to create a reliable and realistic energy future. Our Reliable Renewables plan is the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy that the Australians of this country deserve. On this side of the House, in only a few short days time we will be taking $300 off power bills. But we see that the Leader of the Opposition will take about two decades to serve up the most expensive form of energy that there is. CSIRO figures show us that this is the most expensive form of energy; it is up to eight times more expensive than firmed renewables. While we're delivering energy security, they're delivering press releases, and while we're out talking to regional Australians, they're talking to themselves.</para>
<para>Those opposite put out a plan, but it's probably better referred to as a pipedream. They didn't even bother to call the mayors in the areas where those seven reactors would be hosted. They're pushing action off into the never-never. In complete contrast, Labor is delivering a plan to put regional Australia at the heart of our Future Made in Australia, backed by $22.7 billion of investment in the budget to unlock economic opportunities across industries like green metals, low-carbon fuels, critical minerals and clean energy manufacturing. It's a plan that uses local skills, which supports making more things in our own backyard and which invests in our local workforce. That's how to deliver growth for regional communities—not waiting for another decade to tick by with the delays and excuses for a new power source, only to have to pay more for it. We're serious about delivering cost-of-living relief, unlike those opposite. And we're doing it by delivering tax cuts and energy reform now, not by pushing up power prices by delivering nuclear reactors in decades to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the National Seniors Social Survey paints a stark picture of life for older Australia struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. Many older Australians are foregoing basics like fresh fruit and milk, and stockpiling petrol to make ends meet. One Queensland woman wrote that she has to choose between seeing her grandchildren or affording medical treatment. Isn't this another example of Labor's homegrown inflation making life harder for our most vulnerable?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Maranoa, the Leader of the National Party, for his question. Indeed, we recognise many Australians are doing it tough. People who are on a fixed income, particularly if they're retired and pensioners, do it tough in Australian society. That's why the support you spoke about, if they're in Queensland—not just the $300 energy bill relief; that will be on top of the relief the Queensland government announced in its budget just a short time ago. That will bring that support to well over $1,000 as a result. In addition to that, I have spoken to people in the great state of Queensland—I'll say that just once today, given circumstances later this evening! I've spoken to people who have an energy bill of zero as a result of the support of state and federal governments to make an enormous difference.</para>
<para>The second thing is people who are pensioners will be far more likely to need pharmaceuticals than you or myself. The difference it's made in having the reduction, firstly, from 1 January last year, of $42.50 down to $30—and in addition to that, the freeze will make an enormous difference. On top of that, 60-day dispensing, which literally cuts costs in half, has made an enormous difference to our older Australians who rely upon pharmaceuticals for various health conditions. In addition to that, one of the things the health minister has done regularly is list pharmaceuticals in regular use—not wait but list at regular intervals—to make a substantial difference, so they can receive that support.</para>
<para>We understand cost-of-living pressures are the No. 1 priority, and that's precisely why we've put in place measures that are designed to put that downward pressure on inflation. That also makes a difference, and that's why as well—I know the Leader of the National Party wants divestment of supermarkets, but that's why we regarded that as not being an appropriate response. Dr Emerson's report made it clear as well that we have a mandating rather than a voluntary code of conduct—something that was never done by those opposite. They sat there—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I offered it two years ago!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So you offered it just after you lost government! You didn't do it for nine years, but you offered it two years ago. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for health. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to strengthen Medicare? Why is urgent action needed after a decade of cuts and neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Treasurer said, we're so delighted to have the member for Gilmore back with us in the parliament. She has been a huge advocate for better health care on the South Coast. At the last election she argued very strongly for an urgent care clinic in her region, and already the Batemans Bay Medicare urgent care clinic has seen almost 5,000 patients—every single one of them fully bulk-billed for their service.</para>
<para>In the lead-up to the election, she was also one of many members now on this side of the parliament reporting growing concern in their community about the falling rates of bulk-billing for GP visits. Indeed, while the former government refused to publish the bulk-billing rates for GP visits in particular, when we came to government it became clear bulk-billing was in freefall. The reason why was just as clear, frankly: a decade of cuts to and neglect of Medicare—a deliberate program from the Liberal Party to undermine bulk-billing. Remember, the father of the modern Liberal Party, John Howard, described bulk-billing as 'an absolute rort'.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The former health minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. He said there were 'too many free Medicare services'. It's no wonder why doctors voted him the worst health minister in the 40-year history of Medicare. That's not our approach. For Labor, bulk-billing is literally the beating heart of Medicare. That's why we tripled the bulk-billing incentive in last year's budget—the biggest investment in bulk-billing in the 40-year history of Medicare. In the member for Gilmore's electorate, that lifted the payment for a standard bulk-billed GP consult by 50 per cent—something the college of GPs described as a 'game changer'.</para>
<para>On top of all that, the government has delivered the two biggest across-the-board increases to the Medicare rebate in 30 years, since Paul Keating was the Prime Minister—the biggest and the second-biggest increase in the Medicare rebate. We have increased the Medicare rebate in just two years by more than those opposite managed in nine long years. As a result of all this, in Gilmore the bulk-billing rate for GP visits in the last seven months has gone up by almost six per cent. And across the nation in May there were more than 900,000 additional free visits to the doctor—in just one month. That's what you get under this government. You get more bulk-billing and you get cheaper medicines. That is how you help with the cost of living, not by pushing up power prices with risky nuclear reactors.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goldstein Electorate: Suburban Rail Loop</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's concern in Goldstein about the state government's Suburban Rail Loop project. With plans for many high-rise apartments, residents fear traffic chaos and overwhelmed education and health services. And there is the possibility the SRL will never be completed because the Victorian government can't pay for it. It's been reported that it could blow the Commonwealth's infrastructure budget, especially if the federal government has to rescue a partly built project. What information has the minister received from her department, and will any information or advice received be made public?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much to the member for that question. The Suburban Rail Loop is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure project that will transform the way in which people move about the state of Victoria and will also reshape the way in which Victoria grows, including where people live and the opportunities for people to live around public transport—something that this government is very supportive of.</para>
<para>We have made a capped contribution of $2.2 billion towards the early works of Suburban Rail Loop East and release of that funding is contingent on the program meeting the conditions under the National Land Transport Act, as is any project that the Commonwealth invests funding in, which includes project proposal reports, which we have not received from the Victorian government yet.</para>
<para>As I have made very clear on a number of occasions, no decisions have been made about further funding, and before any further requests for funding are agreed to, Victoria will need to work with Infrastructure Australia so that it can provide advice on this project.</para>
<para>In relation to planning issues, this is primarily a matter for the Victorian government. But we know that, in order to address housing affordability, we need a steady supply of new houses in the right places, supported by the right infrastructure. That does mean, as I say, building housing around really important public transport links.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for Wannon on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, the minister was asked about the cost and whether the Victorian state government could afford it. I would like to request that—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. She wasn't asked about that. The question contained what information the minister will receive. That is an abuse of the point of order. You simply can't get up and add something into the question. The minister is being directly relevant. She's talking about the cost. What you said is not accurate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Brian Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Throw him out!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lyons. The member for Wannon continuously raises points of order that are not within the standing orders. The member for Goldstein on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Daniel</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, thank you to the member for Wannon, but the redirection to the question was: what information has the minister received from her department, and will that information be made public?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being directly relevant and the minister has completed her answer.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How are the Albanese Labor government's reforms to bargaining helping people earn more and keep more of what they earn? How is this different from earlier predictions about these reforms?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Werriwa for the question and indicate there's some good news for workers in your part of Sydney—for that reference in the question of people wanting to earn more and keep more of what they earn. You might remember when the secure jobs, better pay legislation went through—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Gippsland is now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>there was a change in there to establish multi-employer bargaining, and, uncharacteristically, it made the Leader of the Opposition a little bit angry. Uncharacteristically, it made the shadow minister Senator Cash exaggerate a little bit. She said it would close down Australia. Those opposite, in their speeches, said it would result in coast-to-coast strikes.</para>
<para>The results are starting to come in on all of this. Only the other week, we had the latest results on the days lost to industrial action. In their last quarter, the days lost to industrial action was 128,000 days. The figures have just come in for the most recent quarter and the days lost to industrial action were 16,000 days. The days lost to industrial action was seven times higher under them, but, at the same time that that's happening, we're getting the results come in on multi-employer bargaining. And, at the risk of, again, making the Leader of the Opposition angry, this does involve a union. It involves the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. We now have one of the first multi-employer bargains registered and delivering pay rises in the sector.</para>
<para>In one of these, there are 200 employees across eight companies, including some who work at Liverpool Hospital—not within the members electorate but very much servicing the member's electorate in South Western Sydney. I spoke to one of those workers—Josh—who's been working in the industry for 12 years. As a result of this multi-employer bargain, he's now getting a $100-a-week pay rise—$100 every week that those opposite tried to stop him from getting—with further pay rises locked in over the next three years. As well as his pay rise, he's also getting a tax cut of $3,700 a year. That's how you help people with the cost of living, not by pushing up their power prices with your risky, expensive nuclear reactors. When I rang Josh, this is what he said to me: 'It's not just better for us; it's better for the operators too.' He said, 'It's better for the employers because they can do the right thing by their workers now and not be undercut by dodgy operators'—something that is only possible because we now have multi-employer bargaining. Companies now compete on quality, on systems and on brand, whereas those opposite just want to be competing on a race to the bottom on wages. People can earn more, keep more of what they earn, instead of the Leader of the Opposition's plan of working longer for less.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice </inline><inline font-style="italic">Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Most egregiously.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, the Treasurer claimed that I was incorrect in stating that core inflation was going down in peer countries but rising in Australia. When it comes to core inflation since December, the facts are as follows: between December and now—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>the Australian core inflation rate rose by 0.4 per cent, from four to 4.4. In that time, in Sweden it went down by 2.3 percentage points; in the UK it went down by 1.6; in Norway it went down by 1.4; in Canada it went down by 0.8; in New Zealand it went down by 0.7; in the Euro area it went down by 0.5; in the US it went down by 0.5; and in Switzerland it went down by 0.3. And, in each of the last four months, the Australian core inflation rate has gone up. Dr Jim is running out of spin.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hume is always the first to talk about correct titles. We just need to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I forgot.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just don't forget in the future.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Most egregiously.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>During question time the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy referenced a <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> article about the 2030 target. The article was incorrect. As we know, the opposition voted on 4 August 2022 against the climate change bill which contained the 43 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2030. We had been very clear in that regard. Karen Middleton, of course, is normally a very respected and accurate journalist. But on this occasion the story is incorrect.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report No. 48 of 2023-24</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 48 of 2023-24, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Transitional Arrangements for the Cashless Debit Card: Department of Social Services and Services Australia</inline>. Document made a parliamentary paper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's failure to take meaningful action to address skyrocketing rents and house prices that are driving the housing crisis for renters, first home buyers and mortgage holders.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How is it that, in the middle of one of the worst housing crises this country has seen in generations, this Labor government finds it within themselves to give more money to property investors than they're spending on renters or public housing or any other housing measure combined? We know that every single year under this Labor government the housing crisis has become worse. Rents continue to go up. House prices continue to go up. Mortgages continue to go up.</para>
<para>This Labor government in the most recent federal budget locks in tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, in tax handouts for property investors. It is the same budget where they lock in $4,500-a-year tax cuts for every politician in this place earning over $200,000 a year. If that was not enough for the 75 per cent of Labor members in this place and the other place who are property investors, they also continue to get lucrative tax handouts in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. The crucial point is this: not only do they receive those tax handouts but they support them, protect them and refuse to phase them out.</para>
<para>Last year in August national cabinet, under pressure from the Greens, met. At that national cabinet, all but one seat at that table was a member of the Labor Party, and they had the power to freeze and cap rent increases. Before them sat millions of renters whose lives are being destroyed by a housing system that far too often puts the profits of investors, developers and banks—and, it just so happens, property investors in this place—ahead of the lives of renters. They have the power. And what did they do? They locked in unlimited rent increases. The human consequences of that decision stand before us today. We know that if they had frozen rent increases in 2023 the average renter would have saved $4,000 by this point.</para>
<para>The money-saving is one thing, but how many mothers would not have been evicted onto the street because they could not afford the rent? How many pensioners would not have to choose between feeding themselves and staying in their rental property? How many families would not have had to move into their cars because their landlord put up the rent because this government refused to coordinate with the states and territories and put a freeze and cap on rent increases?</para>
<para>And then they have the gall to get up and talk about public and social housing. Really? It is genuinely incredible. If this government spent as much money on property investors as they spend on public housing, then maybe we would start to fix this crisis. But the reality is that, even if you take all of their commitments on social housing—which are extremely minimal compared to what countries do around the world—even if you take them all into account, the shortage of public and community housing and affordable housing will continue to grow under this government. It is genuinely incredible.</para>
<para>They talk about Commonwealth rent assistance. They love to crow about the fact that it has increased by $9 a week. One demonstration that there are few renters on the Labor front benches—in fact, I assume there are none, although there are certainly a lot of property investors, including the housing minister and the Prime Minister—is that they think that $9 a week is good for renters when their rents are going up by $50 to $100 per week.</para>
<para>Let's be clear about this. On the latest data, 40 per cent of people receiving Commonwealth rent assistance are still in rental stress. We received a story—and this is just one demonstration of how broken this system is—this person said: 'I have moved six homes in 14 months. Then another sold from under me. I am now in a caravan, living on the streets with my kids, unable to continue running my cleaning business, so relying on income support, living in poverty.' She has had to start homeschooling her children because the constant moving was destroying their mental health. She has had to start homeschooling her children because of the constant moving destroying their mental health. Before getting a caravan, she applied for 450 homes. The local council moved them along after one day of sleeping in an empty parking spot away from homes, because it was an 'inconvenience' for those who have a home. To be clear, that person won't even receive Commonwealth rent assistance because of how restrictive that payment is. Those people won't get any help.</para>
<para>At the end of the day, when it comes to all of this, the government's message is that its ambitious housing platform is working across the board. Well, it's certainly not working for the millions of renters in housing stress. It's certainly not working for the 750,000 households who won't have a public, community or affordable home under this government. There is a thing that they could do right now. They could freeze and cap rent increases. They could phase out tax handouts for property investors. And they could invest that money in building hundreds of thousands of good quality homes sold and rented at prices that people could actually afford. All they have to do is look around the world to Singapore, to Austria, to the Netherlands and across Europe, where they build good housing and rentals and sell those at prices people can afford. They actually treat housing as a human right rather than something for property investors to make a lot of money off.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I say, we do understand Australians are doing it tough, whether they be Australians trying to purchase a home, Australians with a mortgage or Australians who are renting. We do know, which is why, since we have come to office, we've announced and are implementing $32 billion in new housing initiatives. These are right across the board. They're helping more Australians into homeownership and helping renters. We're building more social and affordable homes and more transitional and emergency accommodation for women and children fleeing family violence, and we're providing additional support in terms of the Commonwealth rent assistance increases.</para>
<para>Right across the board, we need to build more homes for Australians. Australia doesn't have enough homes, but we haven't had enough homes for a long time now. We haven't been building enough homes, and the answer to Australia's housing challenges is supply. That is why we are focused on working with other tiers of government, with the community housing sector and indeed with the construction industry to get more homes on the ground as quickly as we can. Between the Commonwealth, states and territories, we are investing record amounts and getting as many homes built as quickly as we can, bearing in mind, of course, the capacity constraints in the sector. Understanding those constraints, we're looking at alternative methods of construction for homes, including modular homes and new technologies. We are training more tradies to make sure we can build the homes that Australia requires. We are looking at existing people in Australia on visas who have the skills and prioritising them in terms of skills recognition to get them into building more homes faster.</para>
<para>We are looking right across the board at the solutions and working with other tiers of government. We had the historic National Cabinet agreement last August, and that agreement will change the red tape around homes in Australia. That will make a massive difference when you look at the planning and zoning reforms that the states agreed they would do and when you look at the renters' rights the states agreed to lift so that we have more consistency and improved renters' rights in this country. The Grattan Institute modelled it and said our plans would save renters $32 billion in rent. We are wary of the fact that renters are doing it tough, but this housing challenge that we have at the moment is not going to be solved overnight; it will be solved carefully and methodically. There is not a silver bullet like some opposite seem to think there is. There absolutely is not. If there was, we absolutely would have used it.</para>
<para>But we are working very carefully to get as many homes on the ground as quickly as we can. We have an ambitious national housing target of 1.2 million homes across the country starting on 1 July and going up to the end of the decade. We are really serious about getting more homes on the ground. Just last week I joined the member for Boothby to announce more than 360 new and improved homes across South Australia through the Social Housing Accelerator. We provided $2 billion to the states last year. In the same week—just last week—we announced more than 100 new social and affordable homes in Melbourne, also from the Social Housing Accelerator. Last month we announced 700 new social and affordable homes, right across the country in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. That's just in the last few weeks, that we have been on the ground getting tangible homes underway. We are meeting with tenants who are in homes that have been built because of decisions our government has made and that would not have been built otherwise.</para>
<para>Our recent budget includes an additional $6.2 billion in new investments, to build more homes, to slash some of the red tape and to get more housing on the ground. The budget specifically commits $1 billion to get homes built sooner, which will be direct funding for states and territories to get the roads and the infrastructure set up around some of the homes so that we can get more homes.</para>
<para>From 1 July, we have the new National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness; $9.3 billion for the states and territories. I was meeting with the ACT housing minister and the member for Canberra in the member's seat this morning. I was talking to the ACT minister about how important it is that they have this five-year agreement. The agreement includes the doubling of the Commonwealth homelessness funding of $400 million every year, which is matched by the states and territories. With our five-year agreement, we are also providing funding certainty to the states and territories.</para>
<para>On top of the agreement for the $9.3 billion, there is an additional $1 billion for Housing Australia that will go towards homes for young Australians and women and children fleeing family violence. This will be through Housing Australia. We have the Housing Australia Future Fund—the $10 billion fund. Our National Housing Accord means another 10,000 affordable homes will be going through Housing Australia. The fund only passed the parliament in October because it was delayed by the Greens teaming up with the Liberals to take an additional six months. If it wasn't for that, we would have homes on the ground today. But it was delayed by the Greens political party. It was passed in October. By November we had set up the fund and by January we'd gone out to tender. The tender closed just a few weeks ago and we'll be having announcements—getting first homes announced and under construction—later this year. We expect to have this up and running as soon as we can.</para>
<para>If it wasn't for the Greens political party these homes would be on the ground and under construction already. They need to accept responsibility for their role in delaying homes on the ground. They have been playing politics rather than getting tangible outcomes for people on the ground. When I meet with people in social and affordable homes and when I meet with renters, they are concerned about delays in getting homes on the ground. When I explain to them that the Liberal Party voted against new homes and that the Greens held up new homes, they are aghast. They are aghast that people would play games on what is a serious issue and, frankly, those opposite need to take responsibility for the decisions that they made.</para>
<para>We have more legislation in parliament around homeownership and those opposite have also been chipping in here. They claim to be the party of home ownership, but they're not supporting the shared-equity scheme, even though the LNP in Queensland supported the enabling legislation in the Queensland parliament just last month. The LNP in Queensland support it. The former Liberal Premier of New South Wales and the Tasmanian Liberal Premier both support shared-equity schemes to get Australians into homeownership sooner. But while the Greens political party say that shared equity is part of their policy, they apparently don't support this scheme either.</para>
<para>We're talking about 40,000 Australians that could be supported into homeownership through our shared-equity scheme. Apparently, that's not enough. But it is just one part; that is the point of the broad suite of policies under the Homes for Australia Plan. We have already made changes to the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has helped more than 110,000 Australians into homeownership since we came into office—110,000 Australians who are homeowners today, who wouldn't be if it weren't for the changes and the expansions that our government has made. We want to do more with Help to Buy and so when it's in the Senate—whether it be tomorrow or next week—those opposite, the Liberal Party and the Greens party, should be supporting it in the Senate. They should be telling their senators that the time has come and this legislation needs to be supported. It's important to support people right across the board, whether it be supporting people into new homes, supporting people into homeownership, building more homes for people to buy, building more affordable rentals, supporting more social and affordable homes or supporting transitional accommodation for women and children or older Australians. They should be supporting all the above because we need more of all the above. We need to build homes of every type right across the country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's right—build to rent.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My colleague is talking about the build-to-rent legislation. This is important legislation that will get more affordable rentals on the ground in Australia. We have been consulting with the industry and the sector about getting particularly some overseas pension funds to build more affordable rentals in Australia, like they do everywhere else. The UK changed their policies around build to rent, and they have seen great success in getting more affordable rentals on the ground. We need to see more of that in Australia because we need more homes of every type.</para>
<para>We're getting accused of locking people into rentals by those opposite. We're being accused by the Greens party of not doing enough social and affordable homes. We're doing all the above, all of it, all at once. We have a comprehensive plan. It's called the Homes for Australia Plan. It's $32 billion in new initiatives. It includes direct funding for social and affordable homes, funding for states and territories for enabling infrastructure, and incentive payments for states and territories to do the right thing and to change their laws. We need to get more homes for Australians that need them.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If Labor think they are solving the housing crisis, they are delusional. If Labor think putting forward the same old, tired policies is going to fix the housing crisis, they are delusional. If Labor think handing out $175 billion of public money to the wealthy and to property investors to help them buy their fourth home is somehow helping, they are delusional. If Labor think letting landlords increase the rent by however much they want is helping, they are delusional. If Labor think it's easy to get ahead right now and that somehow a first home or even renting is in the reach of everyday people, they are delusional. They simply cannot see what is in front of their eyes: a housing crisis that continues to escalate every single day, forcing more people into their cars, into tents and onto the street; a housing crisis that means it is near impossible to buy your first home, even if you do all the right things that are asked of you.</para>
<para>Labor continue to tinker around the edges while at the very same time making the massive systemic problems even worse. Then they turn around and want a pat on the back for doing less than the bare minimum. Under Labor, you now need an income of over $164,000 to not be in housing stress; that's the average. That's 1.6 times the average income. How is that achievable for a nurse? How is that achievable for a teacher? It is not. Labor haven't just left renters behind; they have left them in the dirt. And they then try and tell you the worst lie of all—that this is somehow all we can hope for, that change is not possible. But we want to say very clearly that it is.</para>
<para>The Greens have done the work. We've got a plan to freeze rents so that wages can catch up, to cap rent increases and to end the tax handouts for the wealthy property investors that are denying renters the chance to buy their first home, and use that money to build and deliver the public homes that we need and that people can afford. Labor might be the party of property investors, led by a property investor prime minister, but the Greens are fighting for renters and first home buyers. Change is possible, and the Greens are here to fight for it.</para>
<para>To Labor: if this terrific plan that covers all the bases is working, why have average rents gone up $100 a week under Labor? Why has the average mortgage gone up by $200 a week? If Labor's plan is working, why are more people skipping meals, avoiding going to see the doctor and avoiding buying things kids need for school? Because they have to deal with a massive rent hike that has just come in or a soaring mortgage bill.</para>
<para>If Labor are doing these terrific things in public housing, then they clearly weren't where I was over the weekend—at the public housing estates in North Melbourne, where residents are distressed and terrified because Labor wants to demolish the public housing that they live in. When I asked the Prime Minister about this, he said, 'No-one lives there.' Tell that to the thousands of residents who are now worried about what is going to happen to them and their communities as Labor are set to demolish the public housing towers and not promise to build public housing in their place—because do you know what they're going to do? They're going to allow private developers to come in and build on the land and maybe have a sprinkling of social housing in there. Do you know what documents that we've managed to secure over the last couple of weeks have shown? There's even consideration being given to putting an Officeworks, a Kmart or a Repco on some of these sites.</para>
<para>Labor has a plan to privatise public housing land and hand it over to big property developers while thousands of people are struggling to pay the rent. If we could spend on public housing what Labor is spending on wealthy property investors to help them go and buy their fourth, fifth and sixth homes, then we could solve the housing crisis in this country. But instead we have a Labor Party that is making the problem worse and backing wealthy property investors at the expense of renters and first home buyers. Renters will have the chance to make their voices heard; if Labor doesn't fix the problem now and have the guts to rein in those handouts to wealthy property investors, expect to hear renters' voices at the next election.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I read the MPI put forward by my neighbour the member for Griffith—I do share his concerns about the housing crisis—it was surprising that he would be so political and suggest that the Labor Party is doing nothing when it comes to housing. First and foremost, the Labor Party is about increasing supply. That's what we need to do first and foremost. I do have concerns about the Greens policy. As reported by the ABC, constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey reckons it would not be constitutional. That is the concern I have. It's been a while since I did constitutional law, but, in terms of the head of power that the Greens are hoping to find magically, I think that would be a problem.</para>
<para>We know that we have the power to give the states and territories moneys to build more housing. We need to do a lot more when it comes to building housing, and we've got some plans in place. So to suggest that there's nothing, when we know that things are being held up by the Greens—we could have more homes on the ground. But look at what happens when we actually get an opportunity to build some social housing. We know the Greens love a good stunt. They stunt as a pack all the time when it comes to making decisions about housing, or anything, and then they'll get the social memes out there. But what do they actually do? I walked past the member for Griffith's room the other day and I saw this sign in the window: 'Build public housing—beautiful, well designed, sustainable'. I agree with it. It's a great thing to do. But I obviously need to get a sticker and fix up the poster so it says 'Build public housing but not in a Greens electorate'. That's what we need to do.</para>
<para>I know they're taking their lead from the member for Melbourne, who said in Clifton Hill that the Brotherhood of St Laurence would not be able to build housing. The Brotherhood of St Lawrence—not exactly Gina Rinehart. The Brotherhood of St Laurence—doing great work.</para>
<para>Let's look at what some of the other Greens have said, closer to home. We have a quote here from the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Mail</inline> about Elizabeth Watson-Brown:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Greens MP who helped to design a 375million apartment block where individual units were going for as much as $8million refused to back a Uniting Church plan to build 92 units on an abandoned chicken farm</para></quote>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline> said the Greens opposed a developmental proposal for 349 apartments across two towers in West End—in the member for Griffith's area: 'Chandler-Mather opposes two 26-storey towers in his electorate, despite the 470 new homes it would create. His argument was it will create more congestion.' More congestion? This is from the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>—not exactly a right-wing mag:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Greens' housing spokesperson has led a long-running community campaign against a proposal … to build more than 850 dwellings—</para></quote>
<para>on vacant land in Bulimba, at Bulimba Barracks. That's from the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>. Or this from the ABC—not exactly a right-wing publication either:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Apartment towers up to 75 stories proposed for Woolloongabba—</para></quote>
<para>again, in Griffith—</para>
<quote><para class="block">to alleviate housing crisis opposed by Greens.</para></quote>
<para>We know that they have these weird policy ideas. The Productivity Commission report in 2023 said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Rent control is not an effective way to improve affordability for renters.</para></quote>
<para>We know that we're going to give renters a helping hand on Monday. We're actually going to give them a tax cut, we're going to give them a—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rae</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A wage rise!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A wage rise. And we're also going to give every household energy bill relief. We know that we are going to help them as much as possible. But the best way to help the people of Australia is to build more houses. Build more houses!</para>
<para>To come in here and be a champion for housing but then to be a mouse back in your electorate, where you won't support public housing—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was for public housing! I saw it. And I hadn't heard this story about the Brotherhood of St Laurence—that well-known property developer! We know the Greens have a very simple policy: build more social housing, but not in our electorates. Not in our electorates! That's their policy—rank hypocrisy! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Why don't you actually come out and support some social housing around Australia and stop blocking social housing, which is what you've been doing?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Along with food and water, Maslow's hierarchy of needs places warmth, rest, security and safety as absolutely fundamental human needs. Safe, secure housing, a place to call home, represents these basic human needs. It's a major determinant in people's lifelong health and wellbeing.</para>
<para>However, in today's Australia so many people, particularly young people, are excluded not only from the chance of owning their own home but from housing security. We hear countless stories of the lack of renters' rights and of renters who face eviction in the face of unaffordable rent hikes, or who have to move home frequently. I hear from friends how their adult children are having to stay at home well into their 20s and 30s. I spoke to a class of year 11 legal studies students last week, and for every single student in that class housing affordability was one of their very top issues of concern.</para>
<para>As a GP, I witness too many young families being forced to move away from Mackellar—away from their networks and extended families—in order to find a place where they can afford to live. In Mackellar, the median price for a two-bedroom apartment is $1.1 million, the median price for a house is $2.5 million and the median rent is an eye-watering $1,300 a week. The issue is causing considerable distress in my community and the lack of affordable housing is breaking up families and putting extra stress on young people.</para>
<para>As a GP, I also struggle to help women find emergency accommodation when they need to leave for domestic violence reasons. Our local women's shelters are still having to turn away scores of women and their children each week. And women over the age of 50 are now the most likely group to find themselves homeless. Now as an MP, I repeatedly hear stories of how difficult it is to recruit essential workers such as carers, teachers, nurses and policemen to our region because they simply can't afford to live there. Already, a public dental clinic and a drug and alcohol rehabilitation service in Mackellar have had to close because of their inability to recruit staff. We hear the word 'crisis' often these days, but it's safe to say that housing affordability in Australia has hit crisis levels. In the 1980s, the average house price was 3.5 times the average income. Now it's eight times and rising.</para>
<para>What are the solutions? Yes, we do need to address immigration levels, and this is happening. Yes, we absolutely need to build more houses and homes, and I welcome the government's investment over the last two years in this. But building houses and apartments doesn't happen overnight. It is deeply unfortunate that in 2013 the prime minister of the day, Mr Tony Abbott, made the seriously shortsighted decision to abolish the National Housing Supply Council. The council's role was to provide estimates, projections, analysis and policy advice in relation to housing supply and demand. If that council had remained, I wonder if we would be in this position of a severe lack of supply that we have now in housing? Instead, current policies such as the first home buyer subsidies, and grants from consecutive federal and state governments, have artificially pushed up property prices, exacerbating—not solving—the problem. As <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">Economist</inline><inline font-style="italic">'s </inline>Saul Eslakesaid:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their ostensible objectives.</para></quote>
<para>We need solutions, so recently I convened a citizens' assembly, the Mackellar people's jury on housing. On an issue such as housing which affects everyone, it is important that I clearly understand the views from people across my electorate, not just the loudest voices. It was wonderful to see the Mackellar residents in action. A group of 30 people randomly selected came together to listen to a range of experts and to deliberate. The goal was to come up with three priority solutions to the housing problem.</para>
<para>Citizens' assemblies are a way of bringing people back into their democracy, recognising that people have a great depth of knowledge, and are a respectful and constructive way of advocating and negotiating public policy positions. I will have a lot more to say on this issue in due course but I thank the participants sincerely for their constructive and considered contributions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to speak on this MPI today and clear the record about this government's bold achievements on housing policy. Contrary to what we have heard from those opposite who brought this MPI forward, the 47th Parliament under the Albanese Labor government and the Minister for Housing, who joins us for this debate, have been absolutely transformational when it comes to housing.</para>
<para>I have listened to those who have spoken from the Greens political party this afternoon and it feels like they are living in a different world. They are living in a world where the constitutional prohibition on Commonwealth rent controls does not exist. They live in a world where the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will build social and affordable housing into perpetuity, did not pass this parliament thanks to the great work of the housing minister, the member for Franklin, and they live in a world where they did not delay that incredibly important policy that so many Australians could not wait to see pass this parliament. They delayed that policy. They live in a world where the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator was not part of our first budget back in government and the $3 billion new homes bonus did not happen. They live in a world where they are not publicly opposing our landmark Help to Buy scheme in the Senate right now.</para>
<para>Quite frankly, they are living in a fantasy world. We in the Albanese Labor government live in reality. As everyone in this place would be aware, we need more housing in this country. We are getting on with that job each and every day as a government. As everyone in this place would be aware, it was quite a chilly morning in Canberra this morning. But luckily for the minister for Housing and I, along with ACT Minister for Housing, Yvette Berry, we were looking at a lovely warm and new public housing dwelling this morning. We were able to tour five new dwellings in the inner north of Canberra, in my electorate. The units were beautifully designed and energy efficient with an eight-star rating and ready for new tenants to move in very soon. It shows what can be done when we have two progressive Labor governments working together to deliver what Australians need.</para>
<para>Starting on 1 July the ACT will receive an additional $157 million in funding from the Commonwealth to build more of these excellent public housing homes all across Canberra. This is part of our five-year national agreement on social housing and homelessness. The Albanese government's ambitious housing agenda will see 1.2 million homes built under the National Housing Accord by the end of the decade. In the last budget alone, we invested a further $6.2 billion to build more homes, bringing total federal investment in this term of parliament to $32 billion. Because on this side of the House we are building the homes that will house Australians for generations to come. As of December 2023, there were already over 226,000 dwellings under construction—six months before the accord period even commenced. We're working with the states and territories to secure a better deal for renters, including the development of a nationally consistent framework with a requirement for reasonable grounds for eviction, moving towards limiting rental increases to once a year and phasing in minimal rental standards.</para>
<para>With policies such as the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Social Housing Accelerator already up and running, and Help to Buy coming soon, this government is fully committed to securing our housing future. It's Labor that actually cares about solving the Liberal's housing crisis while those in the Greens political party are just trying to score points. To think that they would stand in the way of these important schemes to build more houses for Australians!</para>
<para>Here in Canberra it's no different from anywhere else in the country. We have a housing crisis. People need affordable housing. We need more public housing, we need more social housing and we are getting on with that job. It was so lovely this morning to go and visit these bright, beautiful new dwellings and know that Canberrans who might have never had stable housing in their lives before could experience the transformational power of a stable place to live and a roof over their head so they can get on with the rest of their lives with that security. That is what this minister and this government are working to deliver each and every day that we are on the side of this chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The housing crisis has been building for decades and now it's hitting Australians hard. At my Curtin housing forums a representative mix of constituents recognised our need for affordable and diverse housing. Housing prices in Australia are too high. They've increased from three to four times the average income in 2000 to seven to eight times now, so housing is half as affordable as it was 20 years ago. Australia is the third-least populated country on earth but contains the second-most expensive housing. This is bad for the country in a number of ways.</para>
<para>Generations of young Australians are being held back by the cost of shelter. They're living with their parents for longer while saving, delaying life decisions, taking out huge mortgages, borrowing or begging from their parents, living further out from their communities or renting long term. Since 2000, household debt has increased from 0.5 times to two times the average disposable income. Declining home ownership, particularly for millennials and gen Z, creates a lack of security. Increasingly, wealth is determined by inheritance, not by education and hard work. This also undermines the proper functioning of our economy. It redistributes rather than creates wealth. It focuses wealth creation in an unproductive asset. In many ways it's meaningless to hold wealth in a house when housing is so expensive. Everyone needs a place to live, so you can't swap the wealth you hold in your house for anything else.</para>
<para>This situation is only going to get worse for every generation unless government policies changes. The fundamental problem is that successive governments have realised that no-one complains when the value of their house increases. Creating policies that increase the value of housing is politically popular, so both major parties keep throwing fuel on the fire. In about 2000 we changed tax incentives in an attempt to increase housing supply for renters. By allowing tax deduction against other income for losses incurred from investment property, then only paying tax on half the gain, government policies made property the best means of wealth creation. But now, with rental vacancies below one per cent, we can see that it didn't work to increase housing supply.</para>
<para>Successive governments have also thrown fuel on the fire by stimulating demand through grants to first-home buyers. The opposition's current policy on housing seems to be to allow people to access their super, adding more to demand, which will only drive prices up, on average. We use interest rates to manage inflation, which means mortgage holders bear the entire burden of the adjustments we make to our economy. If you own a house outright, changes in interest rates affect you much less.</para>
<para>There are a lot of different levers that people think we should pull to address the housing crisis, both supply and demand: tax reform, building more social housing, limiting Airbnb and foreign buyers, changing zoning rules, incentivising infill, providing protection for renters or linking immigration targets to housing growth. The hard truth is: no matter which levers we pull to get there, success in housing policy would make housing more affordable. This means lowering or at least pausing house prices while wages catch up. No-one who owns a house wants to hear this, but that's the reality.</para>
<para>Sixty-five per cent of dwellings are owned, and 35 per cent are rented, so two-thirds of the population is financially incentivised to favour limiting the supply of houses to increase value. Any genuine attempt to address housing affordability would need to go against the financial interests of 65 per cent of households. This is politically very challenging, and neither major party will say it out loud. But we desperately need a clear direction on housing policy. Does the government want house prices to increase, stay the same or decline? What's the government actually trying to achieve? It's essential that this fundamental question is addressed in the promised National Housing and Homelessness Plan, and, when that plan is ready, before criticising it, the opposition needs to be clear about what alternative it is proposing. Unless we can get a clear answer out of both major parties about how affordable housing should be, we can't pick the right suite of policies to deliver that goal.</para>
<para>Should the average house costs four times the median income like it was 20 years ago or eight times like it is now? How long should it take us to get to this target? If we don't have an affordability target, supply policies will continue to work against policies that drive demand and monetary policy and bank marketing. So I challenge both the government and the opposition to answer one simple question in the lead-up to the next election: how affordable should housing be? This requires courage and long-term thinking, neither of which we've seen much of lately.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is incredibly frustrating and even distressing to continue to sit through the rank hypocrisy of the Greens political party, particularly the member for Griffith. Their contributions to this very important debate are both cruel and dishonest. They deliberately spread misinformation. They deliberately create expectations amongst vulnerable people, people who are desperately in need of public policy support in order to ensure that they are afforded secure housing. They deliberately create false expectations for these people, based on the spreading of false policy logic. It is the ultimate act of cynicism. It is appalling behaviour.</para>
<para>It is the politicisation of a fundamental public policy challenge in our society purely for the purposes of harvesting votes from vulnerable young people. It is purely based on their interest, their political interest, in harvesting votes from vulnerable young people. The member for Griffith and his Greens party colleagues have no legitimate interest in resolving the housing challenges that our society faces. Anyone listening need only think about where their political interests lie here. There are no votes for them in resolving the housing challenges. Their votes are generated by misleading vulnerable people and creating the false expectation that there is a magic public policy solution to this very, very difficult public policy challenge.</para>
<para>The member for Griffith spends all of his time self-promoting and self-briefing in little weekend spreads in the weekend papers about what a genius he is and what a contribution he's making to saving Australian society. It's utterly pathetic. I say again: it is cruel and it is dishonest. The Greens have sunk to the pathetic lows of Trump-style populism when it comes to dealing with these critical matters. It is so distressing for parts of our community, parts of the community that I represent, who are facing critical housing challenges and for whom those housing challenges spur innumerable additional personal challenges, be they health, family, employment or economic. All that the Greens political party wants to do is score cheap political points based on that human misery. The Greens are a party of populist self-promotion and protest. They take no interest in legitimately addressing this public policy challenge.</para>
<para>The Labor Party is a party of government. Our government—the Albanese Labor government and this Minister for Housing—are relentlessly focused on driving secure housing for every Australian in our society. We accept there are very significant challenges to overcome in order to achieve this ambition. But dishonestly misrepresenting an apathy for further innovation, for further investment, for further pragmatic policy courage, plays no role in the very legitimate public debate that we should be having about addressing these challenges. Others have outlined some of these, but I want to touch on them again.</para>
<para>First and foremost, the housing challenge in Australia will only be solved by addressing the issue of supply. There is no other magic solution to this challenge. We need to build more homes, we need to do it quickly and we need to do it all across our country. It's why we have set a very ambitious target. We're very clear that it's a very ambitious target: 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade, through the Homes for Australia Plan. Our most recent budget included $6.2 billion of new investment to build more homes and to support Australians into secure housing, which brings our total spending in this area since being elected to $32 billion. This includes the single-biggest investment in social and affordable housing— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I begin, I will note the points of the previous speaker but I also note that personal attacks on the member for Griffith, I think, in the context of this debate are unhelpful when we're trying to have a reasoned conversation, which I'll try to begin now.</para>
<para>It would be great if there were a silver bullet that could fix the housing crisis, but, for young Australians, I think it is the height of cruelty to suggest that simply putting a cap on rents, for example, would instantly make housing affordable or available, any more than telling struggling families that nuclear power will reduce their power bills when it would be decades away.</para>
<para>The housing crisis has been a long time coming, it has a lot of causes, and it will take a lot of policy corrections and time to fix. The crisis is as deep as it is wide, and that's been reflected in the housing forums that I've held in my electorate of Goldstein. Rents are exorbitant, rising by 7.8 per cent a year—more than twice the rate of inflation—and the number of homes available for sale has been steadily falling since 2015. These days, a standard house costs 8.6 times the average disposable household income—twice as much as two decades ago. That means it's taking people an average of 11.4 years to save a 20 per cent deposit. The Australian dream has become a nightmare. It's the same story for renters. Two in five low-income households privately renting are experiencing rental stress.</para>
<para>Then there is the plight of an overlooked cohort affected by successive government's failure—that being older Australians, particularly older women. I often focus on women in this chamber because, as women, we have the odds stacked against us. We're underpaid, undervalued and overlooked in general across society. Older women who've put their careers on hold to raise children often struggle to find jobs when they're deemed 'past their prime'. It's an issue becoming more prevalent as our population ages; 29.1 per cent of our population is now aged over 55, up by close to five percent in the past decade. As a country, we must have a collective reckoning with what this means for our future as an older Australia. There will be more people out of the workforce, with fewer people to support them and increasing numbers of them locked out of the housing market. It's a recipe for resentment.</para>
<para>One in three women have experienced physical and or mental health issues that affected their financial and their housing situations. Older Australians are disproportionately affected, for example, by an inefficient Medicare system that's expensive and makes them worse off financially. This and factors like the gender and super pay gaps make it very difficult for young and older women alike to become financially stable and find suitable housing. The figures tell the tale: 270,000 older people are either homeless, marginally housed or are living in a home they can't afford. This means worse mental and physical health outcomes too.</para>
<para>Goldstein may be a comparatively wealthy electorate but it's not quarantined from the housing crisis. Women in my electorate have been sleeping in cars because of marital breakdown, and often are fleeing domestic violence situations which end in homelessness and housing stress. The housing crisis does not discriminate by postcode or who you are; it's certainly worse for those who are less well off, but it's a problem that extends to every part of the country. I acknowledge the words of the member for Mackellar, and the similar prices that are in effect across my electorate when it comes to buying and renting.</para>
<para>To help mend this crisis we must do several things, including increasing housing supply and making it easier to enter and exit the housing market. Current tax arrangements, like stamp duty, disincentivise moving and also affect labour market flexibility, thereby affecting our economy. I'm increasingly of the view that negative gearing rules should be changed, with perhaps some grandfathering for those who already own investment properties but limited to one investment property in the future. It won't do everything but it will do something to reduce the syndrome of first home buyers being outbid by investors. We should also look at reducing the capital gains tax discount, which analysts like Alan Kohler argue is more responsible than negative gearing for the explosion in prices over the past two decades. There is also the question of swapping stamp duty for land tax, something that would have to be carefully executed and which would require Commonwealth assistance.</para>
<para>I have supported the steps being taken by the government so far—not without reservation. I have not pretended that what has been done so far will fix the problem; we have much more to do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do find the hypocrisy of what's proposed for matters of public importance to be fascinating. Yesterday, the party that can't cost its own energy thought bubble proposed an MPI on energy costs. And today, the party that has deliberately delayed and frustrated not only significant policies around housing in this place but also at the local level in their own electorates—where they have actively campaigned against social housing developments—now want to talk about housing shortages. When we talk about housing prices and rental costs, we're talking about housing supply—the very thing they have done their level best to hold back. Shame on them!</para>
<para>Basic economics tell us that price and supply are correlated: prices rise when any good or product is in short supply. Meanwhile, the Greens political party—in an unholy alliance with the Liberal-Nationals—have spent their time blocking the very measures that will address supply and which would build large-scale developments of social and affordable housing across the country. They've been lobbying actively, getting up petitions and fighting against actual social and affordable housing developments in their own electorates. So while their social media has them fighting the good fight on housing affordability by yelling at the federal government, the reality is they're doing their very best to block any progress on this measure. They don't what Australians to have homes, they don't want to fix housing supply—what would they campaign on then?</para>
<para>How did we get to where we are? Leaving aside the last decade's absolute lack of focus on housing policy or projects under those opposite, there were a number of recent changes that affected housing supply. We have fewer people per dwelling than previously, driving demand for properties by an additional 140,000 homes. Fewer people per dwelling? How did that happen? Firstly, COVID and changes in post-COVID work practices have also changed the number of people per household, with an increased demand for additional bedrooms to turn into home based offices. Share homes, typically, have fewer people per house to allow for office space to work from home and, generally, there are fewer share homes. People are turning their spare bedrooms into an offices instead of taking in a boarder.</para>
<para>Secondly, a higher divorce rate has meant increasing demand for family homes. Instead of mum, dad and the kids in one home, we now have mum and the kids in one home and dad and the kids in another home—two family homes for a family that used to be in one. I'm not arguing against divorce, I'm simply saying that societal changes are at play here. Then we have barriers to downsizing. Older people wanting to downsize face financial barriers cutting into their buying power, meaning they often stay in larger homes long after the kids have left.</para>
<para>Where else has housing supply gone? Short-term rentals such as Airbnb have taken housing stock out of the rental and residential market and instead placed it in the hotel-motel market. Some local governments and overseas jurisdictions have looked at efforts to curb this, treating Airbnb properties as the businesses they now are, instead of residential properties.</para>
<para>Unlike the Greens, who are campaigning against social housing in our local communities, the Labor government has been getting on with the job of addressing the housing shortage. Last week I was with Minister Collins along with South Australian minister Nick Champion at the launch of yet another social housing development by a community housing provider. This one will build 350 new social and affordable homes at Tonsley under the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, which will build 4,000 new social rental homes across the country. The week before I was with Minister Matt Keogh at the launch of the first round of funding for veterans' housing under the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund—another housing strategy the Greens delayed while they used it to harvest your contact details via petitions. Since the election, this government has progressed a whole raft of housing bills, policies, funds and projects, despite the best efforts of the Greens political party in their alliance with the Liberals and the Nationals to stop Australians getting into homes.</para>
<para>I'm going to finish on a case in point: our shared-equity scheme. It's yet another policy being opposed by the Greens and Liberals coalition, despite it actually being on the Greens policy manifesto at their last election. That's how desperate they are to stop Labor doing anything about housing so they can continue to campaign about it. They're desperate to stop Australians being able to get into their own homes so they can campaign. If the Greens political party wants to do something meaningful to help Australians on housing, then just get out of the way.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't even know where to begin on this.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Stop, then!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, because if we're not out here advocating for ambitious, grand, society-wide economic change in policies, then clearly it's never going happen. That is exactly why we are campaigning and going so hard on housing, because this is a real issue for so many people in this country.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Miller-Frost</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Then stop blocking it!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are the only reason that your government spent $3 billion directly building housing, and I'm sick of you lying to the people in this country! You need to understand the scale and depth of this crisis. The budget that was just put forward in this parliament contained no new measures—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member needs to address his remarks through the chair rather than ranting abuse with the term 'you'.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no need to carry on. I mean, it is absolutely true. As is often the case in MPIs, there has been some rather robust debate and interjections. It is true; it is always preferable for you to address your remarks through me so as not to cause personal offence, and I'll remind others to do likewise.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, this budget contained no new measures for the four million renters who do not receive Commonwealth rent assistance, who continue to face the highest rents on record—rents that keep going up and up. I can tell you who will actually be happy with this budget: property developers, property investors and the banks. They'll be celebrating because this budget dishes out billions in tax handouts for them. But for renters, mortgage holders and first home buyers, it's nothing new. It's nothing but a kick in the teeth while they're already struggling. Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts were left untouched in this budget. There's been no move by the government to freeze or cap rent increases. It's now beyond clear that Labor have confirmed their approach to the housing crisis: status quo. They're doing absolutely nothing differently. We need a drastic overhaul of our housing system. If we are going to solve this crisis, the government needs to step in and start directly building hundreds of thousands of homes itself, like we actually used to in this country.</para>
<para>My electorate has seen people's rents go up by 18 per cent, on average. Rent in Brisbane is growing the fastest of anywhere in Queensland. It's pushing more and more people into housing stress and making the prospect of homelessness real for countless people. Millions of renters are struggling to keep a roof over their head while the Labor government continues to hand billions in tax handouts to wealthy property investors. We have nurses and teachers, all working full time, actively contributing to community welfare and the economy but unable to live near where they work. This system is fundamentally broken, and I don't know where the government suggests these people go.</para>
<para>What we need to do is stop giving billions to high-income earners through the capital gains tax discount and through negative gearing. These two tax breaks are hugely expensive, costing vastly more than all federal spending on housing and community amenities, including transfers to the states and territories, as well as Commonwealth rent assistance combined. We are forking out billions to wealthy property investors, and it's pushing up house prices and rents and not actually making housing more available or affordable for first home buyers. What's more, these tax breaks are highly regressive. When it was calculated by the Treasury in the 2020-21 period, the top 10 per cent received nearly $13 billion in benefits from these expenditures, more than the bottom 90 per cent combined.</para>
<para>We need ambition if we are going to get out of this housing crisis—ambition that ensures intergenerational fairness. We don't need to reinvent the wheel either; we have plenty of countries around the world to look to as an example of what can be done. We can just look at Sweden, faced with a chronic housing shortfall in the wake of World War II. This shortfall wasn't met with bandaid solutions; it was met with direct government action. The governing Swedish Social Democratic Party at the time set themselves a goal: build one million public homes in 10 years to ensure that all citizens had access to good-quality and affordable homes. And they did it, building a little over a million public homes in a decade. And that is what having ambition can get for us.</para>
<para>Without action like that, the social contract is over in this country. Young people already don't believe the economy works for them, and allowing house prices to soar ever higher will be catastrophic for intergenerational fairness and justice.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7184" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7169" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>86</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following three reports: <inline font-style="italic">Report </inline><inline font-style="italic">502</inline><inline font-style="italic">: the </inline><inline font-style="italic">never-ending quest for the golden thread</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">probity </inline><inline font-style="italic">and ethics in the Australian public sector</inline>; <inline font-style="italic">Report 503: </inline><inline font-style="italic">inquiry </inline><inline font-style="italic">into the Defence major projects report 2020-21 and 2021-22 and procurement of Hunter </inline><inline font-style="italic">class frigates</inline><inline font-style="italic">—final report</inline>, incorporating a dissenting report headed 'Additional comments'; and <inline font-style="italic">Report 504: inquiry into procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA</inline><inline font-style="italic">—f</inline><inline font-style="italic">inal report</inline>, incorporating a dissenting report, again headed 'Additional comments'.</para>
<para>Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm going to do this in reverse order. We'll start with the inquiry into procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA. This is the final report for this inquiry, which was commenced by the committee last year to consider matters arising from the Independent Review of Services Australia and the National Disability Insurance Agency Procurement and Contracting, the Watt review.</para>
<para>We released an interim report for this inquiry last September that focused on the activities of the Synergy 360 consulting firm and its role as an adviser to Infosys in obtaining government IT contracts. During the inquiry, allegations were raised regarding potential links between Synergy 360 and former minister Stuart Robert. In that interim report, we raised serious questions about financial impropriety and improper relationships with parties receiving contracts from the Commonwealth, and we referred those matters to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for their consideration—a step not taken lightly.</para>
<para>In this final report, the committee investigated the procurement of the NDIA's new customer relationship platform, known as the PACE system, from the IT company Salesforce. I'm sorry to say that key aspects of its procurement fell well short of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and associated ethical requirements. It was perplexing that value-for-money assessments gave no explicit weighting to price as a key factor in the scoring and ranking of tenders. In addition, the sizes of the contract variations raised eyebrows to say the least. Initially valued at $27 million, the contract was later varied a number of times to a total of $135 million currently. A substantial proportion was due to significant changes in scope along the way, which meant that no other vendor in Australia had the chance to tender for the product that was ultimately delivered.</para>
<para>But the most egregious issue to emerge from the evidence to the inquiry was what appeared to be clear breaches of the NDIA's gift and hospitality policies by officials over a considerable period. The NDIA gave evidence to the committee that no declarations of any hospitality relating to the PACE procurement were made by its staff. Yet Salesforce provided written evidence to us of more than 100 instances of hospitality and/or gifts, including meals, drinks and golf outings passing to NDIA officials over a period of almost five years. Indeed, the table reads like a magical mystery tour of some of Canberra and Melbourne's best restaurants. This was both before and after the awarding of the contract and throughout the period of the contract variations. This includes 50 items above $100 value per person. The premise stated by the NDIA for its hospitality policy is that none of its officials should accept gifts that could be seen to compromise their integrity. The NDIA further stated in a hearing for the inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it would be hard to see how a contract manager could maintain their integrity whilst accepting gifts from a vendor …</para></quote>
<para>The committee concurs entirely with these principles, which appear to have been ignored by a number of NDIA officials.</para>
<para>The committee does appreciate that the NDIA is taking these matters seriously. Further serious questions arise, though, about how widespread this sort of practice and culture may be in other Commonwealth entities by Salesforce and other major ICT vendors, particularly those with what you could politely term an aggressive sales culture. Therefore, the committee is following up with Salesforce to request information about its hospitality practices and about their so-called office of global ethics and integrity. Specifically, the committee requires a list of all hospitality provided to Commonwealth officials by Salesforce on a per-agency basis for the last three years. The industry term that they said to us was 'grooming'. For obvious reasons, we'd prefer to avoid that term in the report. But, prima facie, there is a pattern of inappropriate cultivation of Commonwealth officials, and it's a serious matter. This is big money.</para>
<para>The committee learned also that Synergy 360 had made an unsolicited approach to Salesforce in advance of the PACE tender process and that three meetings, previously unknown, took place before former minister Stuart Robert, Synergy 360 and Salesforce. No written records are available of what was discussed at these meetings. Two occurred with no public servants or probity advisers present. There are no indications that other potential vendors who are not Synergy 360 clients were afforded similar access. Ultimately, the record shows that Salesforce secured a major government contract and later benefitted from a series of lucrative variations. The committee makes five recommendations in its final report, three of which require the NDIA to provide updates on its own internal investigations of these matters and on its progress in implementing the PACE system and the outcomes of this, including cost savings. The committee is also recommending that the Department of Finance and the Digital Transformation Agency take appropriate action to understand the extent to which this inappropriate cultivation of Commonwealth officials may be occurring as a result of hospitality and gifts from major ICT vendors more broadly. Finally, the committee is recommending that the Australian National Audit Office consider future audits of potential gifts and hospitality issues in relation to the public sector to identify practices of concern. I thank the deputy chair and other committee members for their contributions through the inquiry. I also acknowledge the work and professionalism of the secretariat in supporting the committee.</para>
<para>We'll got to report 503 on the Hunter-class frigates and Defence major projects. This final report again complements the interim report we tabled in June last year. It considered the future conduct of the major projects report, which was an initiative of this parliament about 14 years ago, as well as the ANAO's audit of the Hunter-class frigate program. I'll turn my attention to that. This was a critical procurement of new frigates, then estimated to cost $35 billion. The multiple failings identified in such a procurement under the previous government are deeply disturbing. It is perplexing to the committee, unanimously, that Defence only belatedly even accepted many of the ANAO's conclusions after the committee initiated our own inquiry and Defence then completed its own internal review. I'll touch on just the most critical now.</para>
<para>The most astounding failure is that the previous government proceeded with a then $35 billion procurement with no value-for-money assessment. Defence mysteriously removed the value-for-money requirements from the tender evaluation plan. No-one's ever been able to explain who, how or why. And the former government then failed to do a value-for-money assessment through the cabinet process. Despite the significant pressure and risk that resulted from the then government's decision to accelerate the project, demonstrating value for money and compliance with the procurement rules is not negotiable. It's not an optional extra. It's finance law. To quote from the report—I'll just read a paragraph:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Ministers are not supposed to be rubber stamps or daleks and there are two possibilities as to how this happened: (1) either no one noticed that no value for money assessment was undertaken; or (2) they did know but didn't care and blithely decided to proceed with a (then) $35 billion procurement anyway. Ultimately as this was a Cabinet process via the National Security Committee of Cabinet no one will ever really know what happened; whether there was a conspiracy or predetermined decision that BAE win the prize, or whether it was simply shocking incompetence by this group of Ministers in the then Government.</para></quote>
<para>Either no-one in cabinet noticed or they simply didn't care. Defence, through the inquiry, made it clear to us that they could not point to another example ever of a procurement of this scale, or any procurement, going through the cabinet process with no value-for-money assessment.</para>
<para>There's also the bizarre issue of the magic 10 per cent price discount. No rationale was provided by Defence for the decision to just knock 10 per cent off the price from all tenderers in the evaluation and advice to government. Again, this is from the report. I think the member for Fisher will quite like this one:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While the Committee would love to think the Commonwealth could just buy everything for 10 per cent less than a tendered price, it's a patently ridiculous proposition and vague claims there might be an "efficiency dividend" raise reasonable questions about the competence of the officials involved. Indeed, it is not apparent to any member of the Committee whether there has ever been an Australian shipbuilding project for such a major new capability that has run under budget.</para></quote>
<para>Then there's the question—the final key issue—of design maturity. The tender required a mature design, and somehow the Hunter class frigate was assessed as a mature design. Yet it was not designed and it had never been built. This was a completely redesigned ship based on an earlier UK vessel that was not in the water anywhere in the world, which goes to cost-effectiveness and risk. The secretary of Defence, at the end of a two-hour hearing in the inquiry, made the welcome if somewhat overdue statement that he would not have characterised it as mature, on reflection. And I do thank the secretary for appearing and for his evidence. The committee recommends that Defence reassess how it determines maturity in future large-scale acquisitions, particularly as foreign governments will always be keen to sell expensive military hardware to Australia. A balance is needed between that approach and acquiring off-the-shelf military capability.</para>
<para>Finally, key documents regarding the decision-making process were unavailable. The documents that went missing, to be clear, included minutes of the Defence Committee. The Defence Committee, for those who are not familiar with this, is the apex decision-making forum of the entire defence enterprise. It is the most senior defence committee in the Commonwealth, and the minutes relating to this procurement just went missing.</para>
<para>The committee makes five recommendations in relation to the Hunter class frigate program. It recommends that the Commonwealth Procurement Rules explicitly require a value-for-money assessment in a tender evaluation plan as a default option. This must be cleared by the Department of Finance.</para>
<para>In the interests of time, I won't refer to the other part of the report and the future of the MPR. I'll just go straight to the final of the three reports, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, and it's the one you've been waiting for, I know, because I'm sure you're intrigued by the title: <inline font-style="italic">The never-ending quest for the golden thread: probity and ethics in the Australian public sector</inline>.</para>
<para>This is a very thoughtful report with very useful recommendations, if I do say so myself. The law requires that the Australian Public Service be efficient and effective in serving the government, the parliament and the Australian public—and the law, o the law. In delivering outcomes, however, it's not a case of anything goes. Complying with the letter of the law whilst ignoring its intent doesn't cut it. The public sector must operate with probity and ethically. Yet too often we've seen that the public sector falls short of the high standards of professionalism required of it. We've seen that noncompliance with the law is tolerated—that getting the job done, even if it involves cutting corners, is more important than meeting legal obligations.</para>
<para>Even when officials were found to be acting contrary to finance law, multiple witnesses to the inquiry, including very senior people and entities, referred to, 'a lack of mal-intent', to have 'acted in good faith', 'no-one personally benefitted', and, 'we were just delivering on decisions of government'. That is plainly and unambiguously wrong. It should not need to be said that any claim that it is somehow acceptable for an officer to breach finance law and fail to act with probity, but still be acting in good faith and for a proper purpose, is just plain wrong.</para>
<para>Frankly, the committee wishes that breaking finance law was indeed innovative and a new situation. But, unfortunately, the evidence in this and numerous other inquiries make clear it is not. Officials in the Department of Health even received corporate 'congestion busting awards' for former Minister Greg Hunt's hospital grants program, which breached finance laws. Public money was paid without any apparent legislative authority and in blatant defiance of legal advice.</para>
<para>Agency heads are not consistently able to be reasonably confident their officers are acting according to the letter and the intent of the law and thus demonstrating probity. What entities commonly have are integrity frameworks against which they measure probity. I'm getting to the punchline, Deputy Speaker. While necessary, integrity frameworks capture only the minimum requirements of the law. They are necessary, but not sufficient. The committee reflected deeply. We really wrestled with this, and I particularly thank the deputy chair, Senator Reynolds, for her participation in this inquiry. We concluded that a system that could provide assurance that the public sector was operating with integrity, uprightness and honesty has three critical pillars.</para>
<para>First are the frameworks that establish the requirements for public officials, be they legislation, regulation, rules, policies, codes or guidelines. Second is culture; 'The way we do things around here'. Entity culture itself is overwhelmingly set by senior leaders, but it is shaped by cross-government frameworks and the tone is set by governments and the parliament. The third is accountability. This falls to everyone. Individual officers are accountable for their actions. Senior leaders and accountable authorities—that's Public Service lingo for the head of an agency—are accountable for their entities. Policy owners are accountable for the outcomes and compliance with their policies.</para>
<para>But the most essential thing, the secret sauce, the golden thread that binds and animates the system in a positive direction, is ethical leadership. Ethical leadership must be demonstrated at all levels, especially by agency heads and senior officers. The committee has made 11 recommendations that will embed assurances with regard to probity and ethics. I would like to thank all inquiry participants and witnesses, including two departmental secretaries, who appeared. I would like to also thank committee members, especially the deputy chair. And I would like to give a special shout-out to Dr Fiona Allen, the inquiry secretary, for helping to draft such a thoughtful and elegant report. I commend the reports to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport</inline><inline font-style="italic">216 </inline><inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">airobi Convention</inline>, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport 216 Nairobi Convention</inline>. The report covers JSCOT's inquiry into a new major treaty action, the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, and also one minor treaty action amendment to appendices 1 and 2 of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.</para>
<para>The Nairobi convention outlines the legal basis for countries to remove or have removed wrecks, including objects lost at sea in areas beyond the territorial sea within the exclusive economic zone. Ratifying the Nairobi convention is particularly important to Australia because, as an island continent with a significant coastline and shipping industry, we depend upon clear and safe navigation of the sea and we depend upon imports. And, of course, our high-value exports are essential for maintaining Australia's economic wellbeing and the livelihoods of millions of Australians.</para>
<para>For Australia, the majority of wreck incidents involve shipping containers that come to be adrift at sea; that's the reality. Generally, they fall from foreign flagged vessels while they are within our EEZ. Under current domestic regulatory framework, wrecks that occur like this in Australian waters and within our exclusive economic zone, result in situations where effectively the government can't recover the removal costs, which can be significant. Ratifying the Nairobi convention would give Australia a clear legal basis to remove and have paid for, or have removed, wrecks or other lost maritime hardware—like sea containers, as I have mentioned. The treaty means that registered shipowners and state parties become financially liable for the wrecks they create. This means that owners of vessels of over 300 tonnage gross must have insurance or other financial security to enable them to locate, mark and remove any wrecks. This would remedy the current situation and provide the government with the ability to recover costs of removal directly from the registered shipowner's insurer. That provides greater certainty and helps to avoid disputes over the responsibility and the costs there too.</para>
<para>The extent of relevant losses that we see today is likely to increase with the rise of e-commerce and the heightened demand for shipping freight. Larger container ships are being used more frequently, which places extra pressure on the shipping supply chain. In future, ships will more commonly travel at full capacity, with added pressures to load and unload swiftly. All of those things make it likely that we will see more fugitive containers in our waters and the need to respond to those. Given these increasing pressures, and amongst a variety of other factors, the committee believes ratification of the Nairobi Convention is very much in Australia's national interest.</para>
<para>Our JSCOT inquiry included a public hearing and the participation of witnesses from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, in addition to witnesses from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The kinds of issues that we covered included the value of shipping to Australia, which is considerable; domestic regulatory gaps; broad economic benefits, the seriousness and consequence of wrecks, where they occur in Australia; environmental hazards; and the matter of underwater cultural heritage.</para>
<para>The minor treaty action covered in the report focuses on amendments to appendices 1 and 2 of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. That convention was established in 1979 to put in place measures to protect and ensure the sustainability of threatened migratory species, including their habitats. Appendix 1 of the convention lists endangered species, while appendix 2 lists species with an unfavourable conservation status—species which would be at risk of becoming endangered. These amendments add two new species to appendix 1 and 11 to appendix 2, including a number of maritime species like the grey nurse shark. These changes contribute to global biodiversity protection.</para>
<para>The committee supports the Nairobi Convention, and has recommended that binding treaty action be taken. The committee also resolved that the minor treaty action be endorsed without inquiry and that binding treaty action be recommended.</para>
<para>As always, I thank all committee members for their participation and thank the secretariat for the support we get. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Review of administration and expenditure No. 21 (2021-2022): Australian intelligence agencies</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—This review is one of the key functions of the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee set out by section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act, and it is undertaken on an annual basis. During the 2021 to 2022 reporting period, the committee reviewed the administration and expenditure of six of the 10 agencies that form Australia's National Intelligence Community. This included the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate and the Office of National Intelligence. Overall during this reporting period, the committee found that these intelligence agencies appropriately managed their administration and expenditure.</para>
<para>However, with a view to improving the administration and expenditure of the National Intelligence Community, the committee has made one recommendation as part of its inquiry. The committee notes that the 2021-22 reporting period began a period of growth for both ASIO and ASD, as well as the commencement of the National Security Office Precinct Project. The committee maintains interest in the administration and expenditure aspects of these initiatives, and looks forward to continued engagement with the relevant agencies on these matters in its future reviews.</para>
<para>The committee acknowledges the evidence of ASD in relation to the launch of the REDSPICE Program at the conclusion of the reporting period. While the committee acknowledges that much of the program is directed at operational capability development, the committee also notes that a significant proportion of the activities to be undertaken under the REDSPICE program comprise elements that fall within the remit of the committee's oversight of administration and expenditure.</para>
<para>The committee considers that, though the progress of the REDSPICE program will continue to form a part of ASD's evidence to the annual review of administration and expenditure, given the rapid pace and ambition of elements of the program, the committee recommends that ASD provide it with an additional update six months after each ASD submission for the duration of the program.</para>
<para>In this report the committee notes the government's response presented in October 2023 to its review of administration and expenditure for the years 2020-21 and wishes to comment further, specifically in relation to recommendation No. 2 that legislation be amended to enable intelligence agencies' classified annual reports to be provided to the committee. In its response the government noted the recommendation while simply restating the current legislative functions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee reiterates the view put forward in its previous report that allowing intelligence agencies that produce a classified annual report to provide it to the committee would result in considerably greater efficiency for both the committee and the agency and reduce the agency's current administrative burden and duplication of effort in preparing material for the committee's annual review of administration and expenditure.</para>
<para>In this regard the committee emphasises that it is not seeking to be able to inquire directly into the contents of annual reports nor to compel their disclosure to the committee. Rather, the committee recommended the amendment of provisions preventing the annual reports from being provided to the committee in order to allow them to be shared where it is the preference of the agency head to do so to avoid duplication. This recommendation is consistent with views expressed by the agencies during that review. On this basis the committee has invited the government to reconsider and clarify its response to that recommendation.</para>
<para>I also note for the benefit of the House that, in undertaking this review, the committee is prohibited under section 29(3) of the Intelligence Services Act from examining a range of areas such as operational matters or intelligence sources. However, the review of administration and expenditure remains an invaluable function of the committee to provide the Australian public with confidence in Australia's intelligence agencies and forms a key part of the comprehensive oversight to which they are subject. Doing so in this place is part of that democratic process to explain the work to the general public.</para>
<para>The committee initially commenced this review in November 2021 and called for submissions. Following the federal election the committee was able to resume the inquiry and hold classified hearings in November 2022. Noting this review occurred over an extended period, the committee wishes to extend its thanks to the agencies and to the individuals who participated. I also want to extend my thanks to the deputy chair and the members of the committee who have worked on these reports over an extended period. Some of the reports were overlapping, and there was a very difficult period to work through with some 14 inquiries underway at the same time, so I want to thank colleagues on the committee for their hard work and diligence but also, especially, the secretariat staff, who worked so hard and diligently on these reports over what was a very intense period of time. I commend this report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report No. 5 of </inline><inline font-style="italic">2024</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights's fifth scrutiny report of 2024. In this report the committee has considered 23 new bills and 45 new legislative instruments, substantively commented on one new bill and concluded its examination of one bill.</para>
<para>In particular, the committee has considered the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, which seeks to establish a parliamentary joint committee on defence. The bill would introduce two secrecy offences prohibiting the disclosure of information and documents provided to this new committee in confidence. The committee considers that, while prohibiting the disclosure of information to the extent that it contains personal information would promote the right to privacy, restricting the disclosure of such information would also limit the right to freedom of expression. The committee is seeking further information from the Minister for Defence to access the compatibility of this measure with the right to freedom of expression, particularly as to why these offences do not contain additional safeguards as recommended by the recent review of secrecy provisions by the Attorney-General's Department.</para>
<para>The committee has also concluded its examination of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, which seeks to make various amendments to the NDIS Act. The committee considers that the NDIS scheme promotes multiple human rights and that seeking to improve the scheme is an important objective, particularly having regard to the recommendations of the recent NDIS review. However, the committee is concerned, depending on how it is applied in practice, that this bill could allow for limits on human rights, particularly the rights of persons with disability. In relation to some measures the committee considers that there remains a risk that the proposed limitation of rights may not be proportionate in all circumstances, and has made some recommendations that may assist with proportionality. In relation to other measures, following the provision of further information by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme the committee considers that its concerns have been addressed. We thank the minister for his communications and advice to the committee.</para>
<para>Finally, this report sets out the response from the Minister for Indigenous Australians in relation to the Social Security (Remote Engagement Program Payment) Determination 2023, for which the committee had previously concluded its examination. The committee welcomes the minister's advice that she has asked the National Indigenous Australians Agency to consider the committee's findings regarding the application of human rights when designing a new remote jobs and economic development program and a new employment service for remote Australia.</para>
<para>I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. I thank the deputy chair and the hardworking secretariat for their work, and I commend the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: Report 5 of 2024</inline> to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>92</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7192" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7193" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7195" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>92</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just picking up from where I finished before question time: I was talking about Labor's proud legacy of environmental reform and how, since coming to government, we have taken strong action to combat climate change and lower our emissions so that Australia meets its targets and protects its natural resources threatened by the changing climate. Today the Albanese Labor government continues that proud history with the second tranche of its environmental laws—the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency, the introduction of better data and accountability for decision-making and the world-first decision to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation.</para>
<para>We've heard some criticism around the chamber about these new laws—from some that they don't go far enough and that the reforms should have all been done at the same time, and from those opposite that the reforms are too extreme. We've also faced criticism that the EPBC Act should be implemented first. Setting up the EPA before bringing in the EPBC Act reforms is a crucial step to ensuring the new EPBC Act will be enforced. I'm personally very committed to advocacy on strengthening our environmental laws, as this is a critical part of our entire approach to protecting nature and the way we approach climate change. This is something my constituents are very engaged with and something I am confident that we will be doing and that our minister is deeply committed to—that is, something that needs to be done properly. We are talking about around a thousand pages of legislation in the current act, so consultation is continuing around that.</para>
<para>Professor Graeme Samuel, the author of the review of the EPBC Act, has himself said that the government and the minister are doing everything exactly as they should be; I don't underestimate the complexity of what has to be done. The Australian Conservation Foundation has welcomed the government's announcement that it will set up an agency to enforce environmental laws—something that previous governments failed to do. The World Wide Fund for Nature has described the new EPA as 'a potential game changer'. The Australian Marine Conservation Society has described these new institutions as 'essential and welcome'. The Business Council of Australia has commended the government for 'taking the right step', and the Urban Development Institute of Australia has said 'the minister is doing the right thing'. The National Farmers Federation has also supported these reforms, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our members have said for years that the current Act is broken. It is hard to engage with producers who want to do the right thing, and in some instances it's preventing best practice management of the landscape.</para></quote>
<para>This is Australia's first national environmental protection agency, and it will have strong new powers and penalties to enforce federal environmental laws. The EPA is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. It's ensuring that the framework behind setting up the EPA is on its way so it's ready to administer the new environmental laws. The EPA would administer Australia's national environmental laws to better protect our environment and make faster, better decisions. It will be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making.</para>
<para>Our government has undertaken offsets audits which found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental laws had either clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. Another audit found that one in four had failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage they were doing. This is unacceptable. We need to urgently strengthen enforcement of environmental protection laws.</para>
<para>To ensure environmental protection, the EPA will be able to issue environmental protection orders to lawbreakers and perform environmental audits on businesses to ensure that they are compliant with environment approval conditions. The penalties for breaching environmental law will also be increased, bringing maximum fines into line with punishments for serious financial offences such as insider trading and market manipulation. For extremely serious intentional breaches of federal environment law, courts would be able to impose fines of up to $780 million or send people to prison for up to seven years. Importantly, the new EPA will provide better guidance and education to make sure businesses are clear about the rules so that they can do the right thing. The Samuel review into our environment laws found that the regulator is not fulfilling the necessary function of monitoring compliance and enforcement of the current laws. The review also found that serious enforcement actions are rarely used and that penalties need to be more than the cost of doing business.</para>
<para>We know that the current system is not working, so we are working to fix it. Ensuring that our regulatory system works to prevent environmental damage and ensures that our laws are upheld is one of the most important things that we can do to protect nature. If organisations commit to mitigating against or to an offset to make up for an unavoidable impact on nature, the public should be confident that the commitment will be kept. Our bills respond to those findings of the Samuel review and offsets audits while we continue to work on the rest of our environmental law reforms. Stage 3 of the Albanese Labor government's environmental plans will continue our broader efforts to halt and reverse environmental decline and protect nature. The EPA will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and enforcement actions using high-quality data and information. It would provide assurance that environmental outcomes are being met.</para>
<para>Most businesses are doing the right thing. We know that. But when penalties for breaking the law are too low and the risk of being caught is negligible, some companies or individuals regard breaking the law as an acceptable cost of doing business. That's why we are increasing the penalties too. The EPA will play an important role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond and ensure that the minister and government of the day have advice on how to continue to strengthen Australia's environmental laws.</para>
<para>These bills also establish Environment Information Australia. The EIA will have an independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to the EPA, the minister and the public. This independent position will allow the agency to transparently report on trends in the environment. This will support actions and decisions to halt and reverse the decline and, in turn, protect and restore nature. The EIA will be working in collaboration with Australia's experts, scientists and First Nations peoples to collect information and produce consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment. We all know that a nature-positive Australia is good for the economy, livelihoods and wellbeing, but to achieve a nature-positive Australia we must have good quality and useful environmental information. The EIA we are establishing through this legislation will provide that for Australians and ensure that we are nature positive well into the future.</para>
<para>The information collected by the EIA will inform investment, policy and regulatory decisions by government, the private sector, community groups, academics and scientists, and philanthropic groups. We know that national environment information and data is fragmented, its quality is uncertain and what is available is not readily accessible and usable. To ensure that our environment remains protected, that our unique plants and animals continue to thrive in their environments, we must have consistent and reliable information and resources for businesses. When project proponents are more easily able to select sites which minimise impacts on nature, projects can be approved more busily and completed faster.</para>
<para>Legislating for independent, consistent and authoritative environmental reporting will mean that no Australian government can hide the truth about the state of our environment—as the previous government did. This will stop the decade of environmental crime that we saw under the previous government from ever happening again. The Leader of the Opposition wants to weaken environmental laws, including giving Clive Palmer's coalmine on the doorstep of the Great Barrier Reef the green light. It is important to note that the Minister for the Environment has blocked this coalmine, because Labor cares about the environment. This bill also provides more transparency of the critical information and data that underpins regulatory decision-making. This agency was a key recommendation of the Samuel review and delivers on our promise at the last election to provide consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country.</para>
<para>The bill also defines for the first time the term 'nature positive' and introduces a requirement to report on Australia's national progress towards that outcome. This will be the first time any country has defined 'nature positive' in legislation and put in place national reporting against this objective. In short, 'nature positive' means improving our ecosystems, including the species that rely on them and form part of an ecosystem. Creating a nature-positive Australia means that across Australia nature is repairing and regenerating rather than continuing to decline. Requiring reports to be prepared and published online every two years instead of every five years will allow us to get on the front foot and better apply and track protections where they are most needed.</para>
<para>Australia's environment is a national asset and responsibility. This is why the <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">E</inline><inline font-style="italic">nvironment</inline> reports include a new requirement to report on the progress of the government's national environmental goals. This bill makes it a requirement for the government to commit publicly to national environmental goals. I am looking forward to working with the minister to make our environmental laws fit for purpose. This is an incredibly significant bill and an incredibly ambitious plan that we have to protect our environment. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we go again. This government doesn't find any bill, doesn't find any legislation and doesn't find anything else where it can't fight to make things more difficult for people in Australia trying to do something. This is called the 'nature-positive bill'. Something about the 'nature-positive bill'. Most of the people over there live in the natural environment of a concrete jungle. They live in cities. Members on the other side, from that corner around, are city elites. They don't live in the country. They don't live in the natural environment anyway. Yet, again, in this bill they are telling us in the country—this is a city-versus-country thing again—how we can do things better: 'What you do is not okay. How you do it is not okay.' That is from their elite and entitled position in society.</para>
<para>What is this bill going to do? I'll tell you what this bill is going to do. It will mean less investment in this country and fewer jobs over time in this country. People looking to invest in this country will go: 'You know what? It's too hard. This is all just too hard.' And it isn't rocket science to work out how you succeed as a country. Let's take it down to the family level. As a family, you sit around the table and you go: 'Okay, we need to increase the income of our family here. If we want to send the kids here or if we want to go on a holiday there or if we want to put a thing out the back, we need more money. We need to increase the income of this family unit.' We all understand that one. Even members over there understand that one.</para>
<para>Then go to the next level. You have a small business. You not only employ yourself and other people but you need to attract some investment or capital into the business and, as a bigger business, you might need to attract a fair bit of capital into your business. Those opposite have no idea about what you have to do to attract investment, to attract capital into your business. You have to make it attractive and be able to sell it to people by saying, 'This is the idea. This is what we will do. Get involved and you are going to make some money.'</para>
<para>As a country, we are no different. Those opposite are all very good at spending money. They love spending money. They have great ideas about how to spend money—some of it I don't disagree with, some of it I do—but all you see with these types of bills is how to make it harder to make it. What this bill will do is make it a much more unattractive country to invest in, resulting in less investment into this country. Therefore, it will make it harder for us as a country to attract investment—therefore, income—and have money to spend on the government services that we want and that those opposite want to spend money on.</para>
<para>Why do I say that, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou? I will go through parts of the bill with you. This is going to create a new bureaucracy, create a new entity. The bill will create an environmental protection authority. We have a few already but let's create a new one and let's also then get a data collection body we will call Environment Information Australia. What is this going to mean? It will mean an extensive new audit and inspection arrangement—great—that will create a few more jobs for people to go around looking for ways and ideas to stop people from doing stuff.</para>
<para>The other thing it will do is provide the ability through what will be called environmental protection orders to force projects' proponents to immediately cease work on their developments. Well, that is sounding like the unions now—unions with a different modus operandi. Let's walk into places where people are trying to have a go, trying to get an investment up, trying to employ people, maybe even trying to export stuff from our country and force them to immediately cease work on their developments. The other thing it will do is impose unprecedented monetary fines on businesses. What else is it going to do? It will increase red tape and confusion, increase sovereign risk and a whole lot of other stuff.</para>
<para>This bill will result in less investment in this country, fewer jobs in this country over time, which will damage our economy, which will mean less money to spend on the services that the other side talk about. I will go through quite a number of other ways this bill does that. It will give the power or authority to the DCCEEW to undertake many of the environmental assessments under the EPBC Act. As I said, it will result in extensive new audit and inspection arrangements. It is going to force project proponents to immediately cease work on their developments at any time where it is reasonably suspected they have contravened obligations. It will mean the imposition of unprecedented monetary fines, a significant degree of free reign and the near-complete impunity from the removal for the EPA CEO. All of these changes will be especially damaging to industry and will leave it with more red tape and confusion, increase sovereign risk and exert a chilling effect on the future investment in Australia.</para>
<para>Similarly, the legislation will inevitably prove heavy-handed given it will legislate for the substantial authority and autonomy of its head. I am going to have a wild guess here that none of the people who run this, the people who head this up, the people who go on to these places and say, 'You are going to stop this, or 'You cannot invest in this,' or 'We are going to stop you from doing what you are doing,' have ever worked in private enterprise and employed people on their own bat. That is my prediction. I am happy to be proven wrong. I am happy for someone to come back into this chamber in six or 12 months time and say 'No, actually, the head of this has had good experience in the business world.' I will happily eat humble pie but it won't be the case.</para>
<para>I've spoken on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 in the last couple of days too. What did we see in that bill, like we've seen in this bill? This will affect investments. I remind those opposite too that, as shadow trade minister, I'm very conscious of our export industries. Our four biggest export industries are coal, gas, iron ore and farming. I ask of those opposite, because of the types of electorates they represent, how many of them have a coalmine in their electorate? Maybe one member who's in here does, but not many.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Swanson</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do. Me. I do.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Good on you, member for Paterson. You understand the importance of the coal industry, iron ore, gas and farmers. They are all country people and those are all industries that are in the country. In this bill, like in the live export one we saw earlier, we again have city elites saying, 'Live export's no good; you shouldn't do that; it's nasty; I saw it on <inline font-style="italic">Four </inline><inline font-style="italic">Corn</inline><inline font-style="italic">ers</inline> and they're telling me that it's a nasty industry, so shut it down'—and they did.</para>
<para>This bill is going to do exactly the same thing. This bill is going to have a harmful impact on regional communities. It's going to have a harmful impact on our exporting industries. It's going to have a harmful impact on our sovereignty, and when you talk about that you even hear other countries start to talk about Australia as a sovereign risk. We are becoming a sovereign risk. What do we mean by that? International capital—money—when it looks to invest in projects around the world, sort of looks at Australia now and goes, 'Uh oh; a bit dangerous; there's a risk in investing in that country for multiple reasons.' That's been stated by many people across the world.</para>
<para>Very sadly, I stand here to speak against a bill that the Labor Party has introduced. This is a bad bill for our country. It's especially a bad bill for regional communities. It's a bad bill for the investment it will scare out of our communities. And, again, it doesn't surprise me, coming from a government that represents and is a government of city elites.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7212" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:22] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>58</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>80</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The name of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>97</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7192" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7193" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7195" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>97</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad to speak in support of the bill itself, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the associated bills. It's a vitally important reform and it seeks to address an urgent issue. Australia's environment is not in great shape; we know that. Australia's environment has suffered very significant harm over a considerable period of time. We know the reasons for that, and we have seen those apply over a considerable period. They include introduced species, deforestation and other kinds of human activity. More recently, they include climate change, which is making all of those other things worse. We've been told, in no uncertain terms, on a completely solid scientific basis that Australia's environment is in poor condition, and the trajectory is for further decline. That's why this government has wasted no time in making some significant reforms. These are very substantial reforms, and they join a considerable list of changes, legislative and regulatory reform but also program and funding provisions that the minister for the environment has delivered. As she rightly says, there is no time to waste on this issue.</para>
<para>The speaker before me in this debate, the member for Page, essentially got up and said, 'We're not going to back this. We don't back this sort of stuff.' I thought that was interesting. 'This sort of stuff' is trying to ensure that Australia's remarkable and distinctive environment and biodiversity persists—that it continues and that it is able to be healthy and sustainable on its own terms. Nature, the environment, doesn't exist for us. It should be able to exist, continue and be sustainable on its own terms. But it certainly means that the distinctive Australian environment will continue to be this precious resource, a part of our precious heritage for this generation, the next generation and generations to come. This won't be the case if we continue with business as usual. So, if anyone says, 'I'm not interested in this sort of stuff,' what they're essentially saying is, 'I don't give a stuff about the poor condition of the Australian environment. I don't care about species going extinct. I don't care about the disappearance of threatened ecological communities. I don't care about any of those things, and I don't care about the extent to which people in the future won't be able to live in a continent like Australia and experience and enjoy all those things, and take pride in the stewardship of that remarkable environmental condition'—stewardship which, of course, was provided for tens of thousands of years by First Nations people.</para>
<para>We've got a lot to learn from First Nations people in seeking to do a much better job when it comes to our environment and the biodiversity on which it depends. This is part of it; this is what the Albanese Labor government was elected to do.</para>
<para>We've come along after a period of time in which Australia's environment was put under more pressure, and it got worse and began to experience some acute forms of climate change pressure which we knew were coming, whether it was the massive bushfires, or the floods that we saw recently, or the incredible warm and dry spell we've just had in Western Australia, which has literally seen the Western Australian bush dying of thirst. If you went anywhere beyond the metro area—to the east or south-east of Perth—over the last six months, you'd see a landscape that features all these unfamiliar colours. You see browns, dry yellows and reds. If you came from the Northern Hemisphere you might think, 'This must be Australia in autumn.' But it's not. It's the incredibly beautiful and rich biodiverse forest landscape of Western Australia dying of thirst in a way we haven't seen for some time.</para>
<para>We're not going to accept that. We're not going to accept the kinds of things that have occurred over the previous 10 years, like 40 per cent cuts to the department of the environment. When it came to EPBC approvals, an ANAO report found that 79 per cent of all of those approvals involved conditions that were being breached with no monitoring—which of course is hard to do when you have a department that gets chopped off at the knees to the extent that the previous government was prepared to do. We saw species continuing to go extinct, and we saw species continuing to be added to the endangered and threatened list. We're not going to accept that, so we are making some significant reforms.</para>
<para>Reforming the EPBC Act is the No. 1 focus, and the minister is pursuing that consultatively, steadily and thoroughly. It's a thousand-page piece of legislation. It's a complex piece of work, and we have to get it right. While we get the EPBC reforms right, we're wasting no time with other aspects of the reform. Last year, we improved the scope and strength of the water trigger under the EPBC Act, and that's particularly significant when it comes to making sure that water resources aren't threatened by unconventional gas projects in the way that they have been in Europe and in the United States. It's something the Australian community will not accept, and the minister took the opportunity when it presented itself to make that change earlier than many people had thought would be possible.</para>
<para>Now we have come along here with the nature-positive reforms, and we are taking two big further steps. We are introducing, for the first time, a national independent Environmental Protection Agency—something the community has identified and called for for a long time. Environmental stakeholders and scientists have also called for it for a long time. It's quite a sensible thing to set up an expert agency that is properly resourced to make independent environmental decisions and ensure that we're not allowing this trajectory of decline that has been occurring throughout the 21st century to continue.</para>
<para>The previous government knew that something had to be done. Why? Because they received the <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tate of </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">environment</inline> reports and each successive <inline font-style="italic">State of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">environment</inline> report painted a darker and more depressing picture when it came to Australia's environment and biodiversity. More particularly, the previous government commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to have a look at what would be needed to ensure that the EPBC Act actually did its job. The other side can say, 'We hate red tape and we hate regulation,' or, 'We hate this kind of stuff,' as the member for Page said, ostensibly about the kinds of guidelines and frameworks that protect Australia's environment. 'We hate all that.' But the bottom line is that the previous government received a comprehensive, cogent report and set of recommendations from Professor Graeme Samuel, and what they do? They did nothing. They literally did zero.</para>
<para>Graeme Samuel said: 'You've got to reform the EPBC Act. You've got to get the national standards working properly. You've got to have an independent cop on the beat.' Because what has been going on today has been that the decisions themselves have been bad, and then the decisions are not being applied or compliance with the decisions is not occurring at all. As I said before, 79 per cent of all decisions had conditions that weren't being met. We know that one in seven offsets provided under that decision-making framework weren't being delivered in the way they had been promised by project proponents. In fact, there wasn't even an accessible register of all of the offsets that had been provided in order to make some projects approvable, and there was evidence that in some cases offsets were being provided twice for state and Commonwealth approvals—all the kinds of things that can go wrong if you don't care and if you don't make sure that government works properly and that the Public Service is both resourced and encouraged to do its job.</para>
<para>The previous government received the 2021 <inline font-style="italic">Stat</inline><inline font-style="italic">e of the environment</inline> report. What story did it tell? It said the environment's in rough shape, it's getting worse, there's too much harm occurring, the regulation is rubbish and the resources aren't there—all of the kinds of things that you get in a recipe for disaster. The minister in the previous government wouldn't release the report. If you get a report you don't like, or you get a bad report, the Australian community might expect you to listen to it, front up to it, have the courage to accept what it's telling you and take some action. What did the previous government choose to do? They chose to bury it, ignore it, hide it from the Australian people and misrepresent the facts. With the EPBC reforms recommended to them by Graeme Samuel, who they commissioned to undertake the report, to fix the national standards, create an independent environmental protection agency and consider how you might streamline some of the processes, they said, 'No.' They had no interest in that. None of that ever came here. There was never a bill like this one, seeking to introduce those kinds of reforms, so we're not going to do that. That would be utterly irresponsible, and it would be a dereliction of the duty that any Australian government has to the Australian people and to the Australian environment. Instead, we are creating this independent protection agency and we're creating Environment Information Australia and that's important, because one of the reasons why so much environmental harm has occurred is we haven't been able to see the full picture. What we've tended to do is: people come along and say, 'I would like to undertake a particular project,' that gets assessed just on its own terms and, too often, things had been approved in ways that weren't really respectful of the environmental condition, the conditions that were applied weren't met and there was no compliance with those conditions.</para>
<para>But what we weren't seeing was the cumulative impact. You're getting decision after decision after decision after decision, in many cases involving reduction in habitat and other kinds of pressures on threatened species, and, while those decisions, one by one, might have been tolerable as far as the health of a threatened ecosystem or a particular species, in combination they were pushing species off the cliff and they were pushing ecological communities closer and closer to the brink. Environment Information Australia will help us stop that because it will give us that picture, and it will work really well alongside the other reform that we've introduced, the Nature Repair Market Bill. That falls under the same category as this sort of stuff.</para>
<para>According to the member for Page, it was actually an idea that the National Party came up with in the previous parliament, and it was quite a good idea, to connect up those who have significant landholdings, particularly Australian farmers who are interested in and have a tradition of wanting to improve country and undertake restoration projects, with the growing amount of capital that exists to see that work undertaken. It was an idea that the Nationals put forward—quite a good one. It didn't advance under the previous government; we've delivered it. Environment Information Australia will help make sure that that works well. Farmers will benefit from it but, more particularly, the Australian environment will be improved by it.</para>
<para>Those are among the programs and funding that the minister for the environment has delivered. We have the $200 million Urban Waterways and Catchments Program. We know that that's critical. Most of our major cities involve a significant watercourse, and the way that our cities relate to the watercourse—drain into the watercourse—obviously has a big effect on those ecosystems. We shouldn't forget that, when it comes to the environment, there isn't the chalk-and-cheese divide that the member for Page was trying to suggest exists. He used some weird phrase like 'inner city elites who don't understand what it's like in the country' and 'people in the country who don't understand what it's like in the city'. That sort of dichotomy is utterly false. We all spend time in the regions and the country. We're all connected to the regions and the country through family and friends, and the reverse is true from country and regional people with respect to the cities. But half of all threatened species in Australia are actually present in metropolitan areas, so programs like the Urban Waterways and Catchments Program are really critical.</para>
<para>The minister's quite right to say that this government won't waste time because there is no time to waste. When it comes to Australia's environment and biodiversity, it is one of our most precious responsibilities. There is nowhere on Earth like Australia. We are the custodians of this remarkable continent. We inherit that from the longest continuous civilisation on Earth. We owe it to the environment, on its own terms, to do much better than we've done because we've done a pretty awful job. The Australian environment has been hammered and it's on a trajectory of decline. The previous government couldn't give a stuff about that. They didn't do anything about it, despite all of the warnings and all of the expert reports. We're not going to take that approach. We've started the reform process. This bill continues with two significant instalments in looking after Australia's environment under the Albanese Labor government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I certainly support the amendment proposed by the member for Fairfax. In spite of what's been said previously, the majority of the impact of what's proposed here, in the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills, will be felt once again by regional Australians. Those of us who live in the regions and are involved in both agriculture and resources and mining will certainly be the target of and affected by what Labor is putting on the table.</para>
<para>Once again Labor is setting up another independent entity, Environment Protection Australia, that will totally remove the minister from the decision-making process and from taking responsibility for government decisions. Effectively, what this means in practice is that Labor is determined to remove the decision-making responsibility from elected members of parliament who become ministers and to hand that responsibility to unelected Canberra based bureaucrats. When you look at recent events, that hasn't really gone well for the government. I note that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs is at the table. We've have seen the terrible situation where the independent AAT essentially have made a range of decisions that certainly haven't assisted in keeping Australians safe. We need ministers who can and do take responsibility and do make those decisions.</para>
<para>Again, Australian taxpayers will have to pay exorbitant amounts for incompetent boards and departments and ministers' salaries when we've got an independent board that's going to make the decisions. This means either the minister is not competent or is actually unwilling or unable to do the work that their portfolio requires. Because of that weakness and lack of accountability, Labor ministers are always going to need that 'get out of jail free' card that allows them to blame some obscure independent body and not take responsibility for the government's decisions, particularly if they are flawed or when they are the wrong decisions.</para>
<para>Unfortunately this shows that ministers don't have the courage of their convictions and are not willing to or capable of taking responsibility for the Labor government's decisions. It is always going to be someone else's problem when things get tough or go wrong. It will never be those ministers' responsibility. The minister can simply throw their hands in the air and say: 'It wasn't me who made that decision. It was the independent board of the EPA.' It reminds me of the old <inline font-style="italic">Comedy Company's</inline> tagline: 'I didn't do it. It was dolly!'</para>
<para>This is the next bureaucracy that Labor is establishing through this legislation, and technically, once it's there, neither the minister nor the department will have any role in the decisions made by the EPA. That's because the decisions will be made by Environment Protection Australia bureaucrats backed up by a second bureaucracy named Environment Information Australia, which will focus, apparently, on loosely described data collection. More layers of bureaucracy and endless red and green tape for business and industry are being legislated specifically to enforce Labor's nature-positive act, and the majority of the impact of that will be felt in rural and regional Australia. The new bureaucracy will sit above the existing seven state and territory EPAs. There will be layer upon layer of bureaucracy for business, industry, ag and local governments to deal with again—by a majority, those of us who live in rural and regional Australia. The two new entities will undoubtedly be hand-picked and supported and surrounded by even more public servants, perhaps adding to the 36,000 extra public servants Labor has employed over the last two years.</para>
<para>The EPA will have powers that extend to undertaking all or most of the environmental assessments of projects under the EPBC Act. It will have extensive new audit and inspection powers and it will deal with referrals by third parties such as the Environmental Defenders Office, as well as any and every other activist. The new EPA will have the power to force project proponents to immediately cease work on their developments at any time and the capacity to impose unprecedented fines of up to $780 million.</para>
<para>Added to this, the EPA's CEO will have complete impunity and immunity from removal from office by the minister or the government. So there is a real lack of accountability in this bill for decisions made by the CEO. Whether or not the CEO makes patently wrong or terrible decisions, the minister and the Labor government will have no powers to remove that person. The only causes for dismissal are dishonesty, financial mismanagement, misbehaviour or failure to carry out duties—not whether they can do their job or whether they can do it well. That is a wonderful licence for unlimited scope and opportunity to do exactly what the CEO wants, good, bad or downright ugly. There will be queues for this job. Who wouldn't want an enormous salary at taxpayers' expense to do exactly what you want and not have to consult, answer or be accountable to the minister or the government of the day? There will be a queue of activists lining up. The roles and responsibilities remind me very much of the disastrous WA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.</para>
<para>But, from my reading of the bill, there are no details on the roles and responsibilities of the EPA inspectors on the sites they'll visit. There are certainly no details on the rights of project proponents, businesses, industries, farmers, local governments or the myriad others who will be impacted by their presence and decisions. I'll be looking very closely at the powers of onsite inspectors when they eventually become available. Perhaps that's why those provisions are not included in the legislation. The government doesn't want the parliament, business, industry, farmers and people affected to know what powers and controls the inspectors or EPA representatives will have until they're actually in place.</para>
<para>They could well replicate the powers conferred by the WA Labor government in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, as I said. Labor's Nature Positive bills also contain Aboriginal heritage provisions. In WA, that act was of the type where inspectors had more powers than police. Will the EPA inspectors have more powers than police in the same way the Cultural Heritage Act inspectors did? Will they have the right to enter properties without the owners' permission? Will they have the right to forcibly stop, commandeer and use the owners' vehicles without their permission? That's what that act contained. Will they have the right to demand passwords and access to any and all information on computers, laptops and other technologies without the permission of the owners? What will the onsite rights, fines and prison terms be for individuals, business owners, project managers, farmers and others when the EPA inspectors arrive on their properties? Will the inspectors have the right to examine every container, cupboard or piece of storage equipment, whether the site is a project site or the businessowner's home, as for us farmers? These are just some of the practical questions, but they were matters covered by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act in WA. That was what the inspectors could do.</para>
<para>Clearly, Labor intends for this to have a significant impact on industry, business and agriculture, looking at the powers conferred by this legislation. But it intends to blame the independent EPA for those decisions. I know from listening to and meeting with the businesses and industries recently that they are very, very concerned about this legislation and the roles and responsibilities of the EPA. They are doing, in the majority of instances, very good work in this space. But they do know how antimining, antibusiness, antifarming and antidevelopment the Labor government is. Environment Information Australia will have to produce a series of new environmental reports through a new monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework with a new baseline, as well as establish environmental economic accounts. What a massive additional cost this will add to all businesses, industries, projects and small and family businesses! On top of the government's scope 3 emissions reporting, it's an absolute avalanche of paperwork.</para>
<para>Loosely translated, what this means for those of us living and working in regional and rural areas is that Labor's renewables-only agenda is being thinly disguised as Nature Positive to ensure that Labor's renewables-only projects will take precedence over our communities, our local environments, our wellbeing, our opportunities and future developments that will support, improve and grow our communities. Those are the ones that we support in our communities. Critically, this EPA removes entirely our capacity to make decisions in the best interests of our communities and hands these decisions to Canberra based Labor mates and bureaucrats. It takes away rural and regional Australians' ability to offer changing opportunities for our young people and to meet and deliver the economic and social needs of industries and our local communities. I believe we will see the EPA waving through Labor's renewables-only agenda in spite of our communities. They will ignore and roll over our communities.</para>
<para>In my electorate, one early test for the new EPA will be whether the proposed 7,600 square-kilometre offshore wind factory will be approved in spite of the environmental damage. If the EPA is actually doing its job right, there is no way that this project could be deemed nature positive simply because it's a renewables project. And what's being proposed is 20 gigawatts of energy from this particular wind factory. This will be a massive proposal. There could be as many as a thousand or more turbines, each around 100 metres high, in the pristine Geographe Bay in the south-west of WA.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that the 7,600 square kilometres of offshore wind turbines will have a significant environmental impact. These turbines can't be installed without extensive impact to the benthic habitat of the bay, which is internationally recognised and listed as a biodiversity hotspot. The federal government's own south-west marine bioregional plan highlighted the key ecological and biodiversity features of Geographe Bay and the surrounding ocean, which also includes migratory pathways of multiple species of whales. That report said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Geographe Bay is a … sheltered embayment with extensive beds of tropical and temperate seagrass that account for about 80 per cent of benthic primary production in the area. The seagrass beds are noted for their high species biodiversity and endemism.</para></quote>
<para>The seagrass beds support critical fish habitat, including dhufish spawning. The report goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Similar to the lagoons to the north, Geographe Bay provides important nursery habitat for many shelf species—</para></quote>
<para>and—</para>
<quote><para class="block">is also an important migratory habitat for humpback whales.</para></quote>
<para>I understand that around 35,000 humpback whales annually migrate through this zone. International researchers found that subsea power cables introduce electromagnetic fields into the marine environment. In Geographe Bay, this will have an impact on many species of fish, western rock lobster juveniles, WA salmon and other marine animals. Rays and sharks are noted to be particularly sensitive to EMFs, as they use electromagnetic receptive sensory systems for orientation, navigation and locating prey.</para>
<para>We also know about the impacts of offshore wind farms in Australia on birds. There is a report by DCCEEW that notes, 'In offshore regions in southern Australia the highest-risk species are albatrosses.' Fourteen species of albatross are listed as threatened in WA, so the process of construction, operations and decommissioning will all impact on the marine environment in Geographe Bay. I'm looking forward to seeing exactly what the government's EPA will actually do in this instance, and whether it will discharge its responsibilities to not prioritise the government's renewables-only agenda over our rural and regional communities and over our regional and rural local environments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I recall a time that whenever a project was put up to any level of government, whether it was local, state or federal government, the first thing that would be asked was what would be the social, economic and environmental outcomes of that project. And while it was always true that all three of those matters were considered in the assessment process, including the environmental aspects of it where reports would be submitted justifying how the project was not going to damage the environment in any way, the reality is that once projects got approval the environmental outcomes were often largely neglected. There have been countless reports over the years highlighting the environmental losses and the degradation of the land on which we live. Ecosystems are being destroyed; plant and animal species are being lost. That's all contributing to a very unhealthy environment. An unhealthy environment, leads to poor health outcomes for the people, animals and plants that live within it.</para>
<para>The EPBC Act came into effect, I believe, in July 2000, over two decades ago. I have to say that, for all its good intentions—and there have been some good outcomes as a result of that legislation—the reality is that we are still falling short in meeting the environmental outcomes that I believe all of us in this House would aspire to. The 2021 S<inline font-style="italic">tate of the Environment</inline> report identified climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, resource extraction and land clearing as contributing factors to a deteriorating environment. It was a report that quite frankly brought home the reality of what is happening in the world around us and why we need to do so much more.</para>
<para>This is a matter that this government, the Albanese Labor government, and in particular, this minister—the Minister for the Environment, the member for Sydney—take very, very seriously. I believe we have a moral obligation not only to the people of this generation, but to future generations, to take this matter very seriously. Just as we are the losers of poor environmental outcomes of previous decades, where animal and plant species have been lost, so too future generations will be the losers if we fail to preserve and protect the environment that they will live in in the years to come.</para>
<para>We will be held accountable for our failure to do what we should have done. Both the <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tate of the Environment</inline> report and the Samuel review highlighted the need for stronger environmental protection measures. Whether it is climate change or habitat loss—and the other matters I referred to—that have individually or collectively been the problem, the reality is that so much more needs to be done.</para>
<para>I am sure other members could do their own research and come up with all sorts of statistics that highlight just what is happening. The number of Australian threatened species has risen eight per cent since 2016. In other words, rather than going down, it has increased. And more extinctions are expected in the coming decades. Australia now has more foreign plant species than native plant species. Again, this is just highlighting the transition that has taken place. The number of plant and animal species listed as threatened increased to 1,918 in June 2021, up from 1,774 in 2016. Again, as the years go by, the situation deteriorates. Between 2000 and the 2017, 7.7 million hectares of land habitat was cleared. Between 2014 and 2019, across Australia, 11 per cent of the coastal dune vegetation was lost. Those statistics alone should be of concern to anyone that has any interest in the environment. I genuinely believe that everyone in this House does care about this issue.</para>
<para>We also know that climate change, while it's related to many of those losses, is another issue in its own right. Climate change is also a factor of environmental destruction. The two go hand in hand. Whilst climate change contributes to more environmental losses, environmental losses contribute to climate change. We all know in this place that the reality is that, again, across the world, huge efforts are being made to mitigate the effects of climate change and huge investments are being made, all because of climate change. So the reality is that, if we can help with the environment, we may be in a position where we don't need to spend as much on matters to address climate change. The reality also is that the last decade has been the hottest on record. That heat—the highest increases being on the land—is also affecting our oceans and our waterways, and that additional heat is directly contributing to some of the losses that I referred to earlier on in my remarks. Only today, the front pages of some of our newspapers talked about coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef, as we all know, is a national environmental and economic treasure of our country. The Great Barrier Reef is something we should strive to protect in any and every way that we can. Again, when we look at why it's deteriorating—apart from climate change—another contributing factor is the sediment washing into the reef from the land. This is tied to land-clearing, land use and so on. Everything is interconnected, and that's why we need to have a holistic system that's going to ensure we don't make any more destruction than what has already occurred.</para>
<para>One of the problems we've faced over the years—and it has been referred to in this place on many occasions—is that environmental responsibility in Australia is shared between the three levels of government. In all fairness to those who criticise all the different rules and regulations, that creates a problem. Quite often, many of the approval processes are duplicated, and duplication causes time-wasting and time-wasting causes additional costs to people applying to have their projects approved. That's not to mention that quite often there are differences of opinion about what should and should not be approved. That's a problem, and I'm hoping that perhaps this legislation will go part of the way to addressing and resolving that.</para>
<para>I said at the outset that this government takes environmental responsibility very seriously. Last year, this government established the Nature Repair Market, which made it easier for anyone who wanted to invest in nature repair projects. There are many good people out there, and many good businesses and different corporations, who are genuinely investing in nature repair projects. I commend them for it. But if we can make it even easier for them to do that then I'm sure that they will do even more. Again, it will be a win-win for everyone responsible. We also expanded the water trigger so that the assessment of our water resources and the impact of projects could be better controlled and managed. That's important for our farmers and for anyone who relies on that water, which might otherwise be contaminated because of the different projects being developed around the country. In fact, protecting our water resources is as critical as protecting anything else that we have in this country. As we all know, water is the essence of our survival.</para>
<para>That's why this legislation, in my view, is important legislation. It's important legislation because it creates stronger environmental powers, it creates a faster environmental approval process and it creates much more transparency and available information for anyone who is going to propose a project or use the land in any way, shape or form. It will make everyone's life so much easier. The establishment of our first national independent environment protection agency with strong powers and heavy penalties is a good thing. I believe that, in reality, most proponents don't want to destroy the environment. Most proponents are as concerned about the environment as I and other members of this place are. So they will do the right thing, but they need to have some guidance to do that; they need to have accessible information and they need to have transparency in the process to be able to do that. If we make everyone's life easier then everyone is a lot more likely to cooperate with the processes that they're asked to engage in. And we'll also have a new office called Environment Information Australia which will ensure accountability and transparency. I said at the very outset of my remarks that environmental accountability was always part of the initial approval process, but it's rarely been part of the process of following up after a project has been approved and we need to have that. We need to hold to account those who say they will do something but then don't follow up. In my view, both of those agencies will go a long, long way towards addressing the shortfalls of the EPBC Act that have been identified by both the Samuel review and by the <inline font-style="italic">Australia state of the environment </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline>.</para>
<para>I conclude with these remarks. In my time in public life, the environment has always been a priority issue wherever I go. At local government level, you will find people and councils all around the country doing their bit to try and ensure that we have a sustainable environment. At state level, I see governments trying to do their best as well, and I believe that this parliament over the last 50 years has tried to do the same. I don't believe that the parliament would have liked to have seen our environment in any way degraded, and measures have been put in place, including legislation. I also now see groups like Rotary and Lions have included the environment as one of the key measures they will be looking to contribute towards as part of their projects around Australia and the globe. And I don't go to a single school where the schoolchildren don't raise the environment as a priority matter for our future. It is a matter that people genuinely care about because they know it is critical to our future survival.</para>
<para>We, as a parliament, have a responsibility to ensure that we preserve and protect the environment and, at the very least, stop it from degrading further. The measures proposed in this legislation, I believe, will go a long way towards doing that. Others will argue that perhaps they are imperfect, that they may cause other problems. The reality is that, as with every bit of legislation, there may be flaws, but this bit of legislation at least responds to identified problems of the current system as identified in the Samuel review and implements what I believe will be measures that will ensure that our environment is better protected into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Whilst the headline of this legislation might say 'nature positive', the reality is this is Australia negative. I've been through the second reading speech and other pieces of the legislation. The part that really stands out in the second reading speech is we know that most businesses are doing the right thing, but the intention of this Labor government is to impose yet another layer of legislation, regulation and enforcement over the top of them. Even though the states have the responsibility and they do this already, the intention of this legislation is to set up the green police with enforcement powers. Can you imagine, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, organisations like the CFMEU—who do this in construction already with rights of entry onto a construction site and cause all sorts of grief for the construction sector—having similar people with similar powers at a federal level around the environment, where they can then enter your site, your farm, your operation, on the basis of the fact that they have a reasonable belief. Last time I checked, it isn't that hard to get a reasonable belief. It is up to the individual to make that determination and you don't need much evidence.</para>
<para>I want to speak a little bit about the hypocrisy. Let's look at reality. The reality is this: this federal Labor government signed up to an international treaty for which 30 per cent of the nation's lands and oceans have to be locked up—30 per cent. I had some research done through the Parliamentary Library. On land alone you need an additional 60 million hectares to meet that target. Now, that can't come from existing parks, from the national parks or from state land. That is already counted. The only place those 60 million hectares can come from is cleared and partially cleared agricultural land. There about 426 million hectares of agricultural land in the country right now. I know in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, and in the member for Dawson's electorate, it matters. It is a big part of the economy. It provides jobs and food for this nation and the world. For those who may be listening, to give your concept of just how much land 60 million hectares is, the entire Australian sugar industry, all of it, the whole lot, is farmed on around 350,000 hectares. So there is 350,000 hectares for the entire Australian sugar industry and the Labor proposal is that 60 million hectares of cleared or partially cleared agricultural land has to come out of production. It is ludicrous! And on top of that there'll now be an enforcement provision under the legislation where inspectors, let's call them—for want of a better word—will come onto your farm or your property and enforce these requirements from a federal level, on top of what's already there at a state level.</para>
<para>If we look at the practical application, many of these things already exist. We already have the Environmental Defenders Office—that great bastion of selective prosecutions, funded by this Labor government. In fact, in their very first budget, the government allocated $9 million for the Environmental Defenders Office. So let's look at some of the activities that they've undertaken. They've undertaken activities opposed to Barossa offshore gas, which, fortunately, the judge threw out for a very prejudicial basis, and that was the right decision. They have looked at a whole stack of other resources driven projects and used taxpayer funds to delay or close down these operations.</para>
<para>But where are they not? We don't see the Environmental Defenders Office anywhere on the huge swathes of land that are literally being bulldozed, levelled and covered with solar panels in regional Australia. We don't see them at Clarke Creek, a wind farm in Queensland, where—and this is in their environmental management plan—3½ thousand hectares of pristine forest koala habitat is being bulldozed to provide roads and access to put up wind turbines. Where is the Environmental Defenders Office defending the environment?</para>
<para>There's a gentleman called Steve Nowakowski, a self-described greenie activist. Steve tells me that he's been arrested many times for tying himself to bulldozers and chaining himself to trees. He has come to the realisation that the proposal—and we saw more of it in the ISP from AEMO today. The damage it will cause to the environment is outrageous for what will be part-time power that can't run the country and has to be replaced at least every 20 years, assuming it doesn't get damaged by a fire, a hailstorm, a cyclone or anything else that happens in this country every other year.</para>
<para>Steve has become a supporter of nuclear. He was originally opposed, but he has seen firsthand what is happening, particularly in Queensland. I attended a function with Steve and Colin Boyce, the member for Flynn. It is horrifying, what is happening. Yet the people who are supposed to be advocating for the environment, to protect the environment and to protect pristine wildlife and wildlife areas, are nowhere to be seen—nowhere. They are quite happy to make noise about the Great Barrier Reef. I compliment the member for Makin for identifying how important the reef is, but I would suggest to the member—and others—that he actually goes and reads the reports on the Great Barrier Reef, which say that the bottom half in particular is in the best condition it has been in for decades. That report has conveniently been shelved or put somewhere else, because 'Let's make some noise about the reef.'</para>
<para>Can you imagine, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, this legislation passing and someone having a warrant to go out, investigate, enforce it and issue huge fines to organisations, on top of what happens at the state level, on top of what happens at the local level and on top of what happens with the Environmental Defenders Office with lawfare? How on earth will you get investment in this country? Layer upon layer of delays, lawfare and court actions make it even more difficult for people to invest and get an outcome.</para>
<para>This might seem like a strange concept to some, but businesses invest to make a profit, and if they can't make a profit and they can't pay their bills then they won't employ anyone and they won't invest here. So there is a significant risk from this legislation in terms of Australia's sovereign risk around the world, and it will continue to get worse. We know what happens between this Labor government and minor parties like the Greens and the teals—doing deals, particularly in the Senate. The outcome is horrifying.</para>
<para>The bill, allegedly, is amending nine pieces of environmental law to confer permitting, licensing, compliance and enforcement responsibilities directly onto the CEO of the proposed EPA. Mr Deputy Speaker, you've been here a while; I've been here a while. Why do we need a minister of the Crown if it is the intention of this government to give all of the authority to the CEO of an organisation, a bureaucrat or a member of the Public Service? It's a legislative authority. It takes away the responsibility of the minister to make a decision in those circumstances. You and I both know, Mr Deputy Speaker, once it's implemented, it's almost impossible to reverse because you need support of both the House and the Senate. We continue to see these challenges over and over and over.</para>
<para>The CEO can also establish an advisory group. You'd think that an advisory group might have three, five, seven or maybe even nine participants, but the proposal from this Labor government is that it's unlimited. There is no limit to the number of people that can be on the advisory group to the CEO for this new proposed organisation, this new level of bureaucracy. And where will they all be when it is a state responsibility, like, for example—we heard about the water trigger—the GAB, the Great Artesian Basin, an incredibly important water source for regional Australia? Where were they in the most recent debate when we saw proposals to literally pour liquid poison into the GAB? Who took up the fight? The member for Flynn, the member for Dawson and others. But nowhere did we see the Environmental Defenders Office. What will happen with this bureaucracy? Will they do those things? How do they get a constitutional power to override the state? So this proposal is fraught, absolutely fraught.</para>
<para>It's outlined in the second reading speech that existing directed audits will be expanded to cover an even greater range of circumstances. So you're in business—I spoke about this with the member for Dawson just yesterday, who is and has been a long-term agricultural producer; a farmer. He and I are of a similar age and similar backgrounds. When we first started, you used to go to work, you used to grow the best crop you could possibly manage and you'd drive your tractor and do everything else you'd have to do. But, now, you have to fill your forms in, you have to do your reef regulations and you have to allocate on a piece of paper exactly how much fertiliser you might apply, even though—really?—nobody wants fertiliser to run away, because it costs money, affects profit margin and affects and impacts whether you produce a crop. I don't know any producers that want run-off from their fertiliser, from their pesticide or from any other application. But it is getting so hard now, so difficult.</para>
<para>Family farmers are literally walking away, and they are selling out to big corporates, particularly those who come from overseas, from pension funds from super funds, and we are seeing larger and larger and larger organisations running over Australian family farmers. I think that's a tragedy for this country. Where is the opportunity for our youth, for our children, for those who live in those regions who are desperate to get their own farms? Now, not only do they have to get over the top of capital, competency, ability to grow, markets and the duopoly; they also have to get past another set of regulations and legislation that impacts what they do but doesn't really have any impact in terms of an outcome.</para>
<para>I'll give you a really good example. My region was recently brought into what's known as the reef regulations in Queensland. It is the Burnett Mary regional area. Would you believe that the Mary River runs to the Pacific Ocean and then turns south? It actually flows to the south. But our region now has to deal with the reef regulations because of the impact on the reef, which is 100-and-something kilometres to the north. It literally doesn't go there. It can't; it flows the other way. But every single provider, like the member for Dawson used to be, has to comply with legislation which has no impact on the reef but has huge impact on their organisation, their profitability and their ability to hire people.</para>
<para>So this legislation—this proposal for the green police, this proposal for even more bureaucracy, which will have more powers than the minister because the minister will allocate those powers to the CEO—is a mistake. It is not in the interests of this country. There are so many levels, so many layers, already, that you do not need the green police. If we look at carbon sequestration, that is something that those opposite are continually worked up about. They love the CSIRO, and I love them too. But, if you actually go and read one of their reports, you will see that there is no practical way whatsoever to reduce carbon emissions by the amount that those opposite are claiming they will without carbon capture and storage. It is the only option. There is no practical outcome that can be achieved under the existing protocols apart from that one. I'd certainly encourage those opposite to go and read that report. It makes for very, very interesting reading.</para>
<para>There will be the ability to issue what's called an environmental protection order, an enforcement tool to force project proponents to immediately cease work on their developments at any time where it's reasonably suspected that they've contravened their obligations under federal environmental law. That is on top of their state obligations, on top of their state workplace health and safety legislation obligations, on top of the criminal requirements to pay their workers, on top of all of the other things they have to deal with every single day to be in business. It's a great shame that there are so few people in this building who have had the great opportunity to run their own business. It makes your hair grey, it creates a lot of risk and it creates problems at home on occasion, but you get to put yourself out there. You can set your own path. You can pay people. You can be proud of what you do. You can take risks. You can make money. You can educate your kids, and it is a great vocation. But there are so many things getting in the way of the ability for any individual to find their own path and their own way, and this is just another one.</para>
<para>What's wrong with Landcare? Landcare is a great, practical solution, a fundamental and wonderful piece of legislation that was applied by Bob Hawke as Prime Minister. I applaud him; it was the right decision. But we cannot continue to have ideological decisions that set the framework of policy in this country with no thought to application, to the damage that it will do and to the restriction that it puts on trade and on individuals who are just out there trying to run their businesses and have a go.</para>
<para>I oppose the legislation. I oppose the green police. I think it's not in Australia's interest, and I am incredibly concerned about the ability of an agency like this to end up like the CFMEU, to end up with rights-of-entry provisions and to end up with actual powers and warrants and authority to go on to law-abiding businesses and shut them down. No-one wants to damage the environment; no-one wants to damage the reef. They just want to be able to run their businesses without so much interference, and they are walking away, particularly those in small businesses. And my heart breaks for those individuals, those young Australians, who want to get in and have a go and who just can't get that opportunity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. When we on this side of the House commit to something, we commit fully. So, when we came to the last election promising a strong, national, independent environmental protection agency, we intended to deliver that.</para>
<para>Today, we are delivering exactly that—an agency aimed at protecting the environment that we all live in and rely upon, and one that has teeth. We are hard at work creating a nature-positive Australia. We are delivering programs, policies and actions, and it's in everyone's interests to look after the environment. I don't see it as a political issue; I see it as something that we should just do and we should be able to find common ground on, on all sides of politics. We all live in the same environment and we all should be okay with the idea of trying to make sure that we look after it as best as we possibly can, because the better we look after the environment around us, the better we look after ourselves.</para>
<para>But it's easy to think that laws aimed at protecting the environment are political, especially when we have the Leader of the Opposition wanting to tear down these laws. What gets forgotten is that some of these laws were introduced by a member of his own party, former prime minister John Howard. So I do still hold hope that the two sides of this House can come together again and be on the same page when it comes to protecting the environment. Supporting this bill would be a very good start.</para>
<para>When looking at this bill, there are four very clear and straightforward questions to answer: do you want an independent environment protection agency or not? Do you want to make sure that we have the best possible data in front of us so that we can be better informed to make environmental decisions or not? Do you want our environmental laws to actually be effective by having tougher penalties for those breaking these laws or not? Do you want Australia to be a world leader, the first place in the world to put a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation or not?</para>
<para>The new body will be known as Environmental Protection Australia, EPA. EPA will work with Environment Information Australia to make sure that our environmental laws are being complied with, because what's the point of having any law if there's nobody to make sure that it's being followed? What's the point of doing anything to protect our environment if what is being written in legislation isn't being followed through?</para>
<para>We already have an environmental goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. We've had those debates and it's set in legislation which has passed both houses. While we may not have all agreed, the debate is over. It would be a waste of our time and resources to have had these discussions and set these targets but not make sure we have the bodies in place to help us meet them. Everybody agrees that what we have in place now is not good enough. Everybody agrees that the current regulatory system just doesn't work. Without these changes, setting our goals and targets will have been a waste of time—if our regulatory system doesn't work then we won't achieve anything.</para>
<para>We want to fix our laws so they're less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. We've already made so much progress in this area, but the next step is the legislation. This stage of our reforms will deliver strong environmental powers, fast environmental approvals, more environment information and greater transparency. These are big steps forward for the environment and also for business. The EPA is a tool that's going to allow us to do this. The EPA is Australia's first national, independent environment protection agency. It will have strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. The outcome of this is that the EPA will administer Australia's national environmental laws to better protect our environment and make faster, better decisions by being charged with delivering accountable, effective, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. The EPA will be responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environmental laws, including in relation to recycling and waste exports; hazardous waste; wildlife trade; sea-dumping; ozone protection; underwater cultural heritage; and air quality.</para>
<para>These are all areas which I think everyone can agree are worth protecting, regardless of what side of politics they're on. There's nothing political about better looking after our land and our sea. The fact is that we need to do a better job at looking after both. The ineffectiveness of our current regulatory framework was made clear when the government's offset audit found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental laws had either clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. Again, I have to ask: what's the point of setting conditions or going through the approval process if the conditions set can just be ignored without any consequence? This is supported by the Samuel review into Australia's environmental laws, which found that our regulatory framework is not fulfilling its necessary function.</para>
<para>While I'm speaking on this bill, I just want to make sure that one thing is crystal clear: I have no doubt that the true meaning of this bill will be hijacked by someone within or outside this place, and I'm fully aware that when the environment is discussed, my election of the Hunter comes into the discussion because of the fact that our main industry is the coalmining industry. But make no mistake: I always have, and I always will, back the coalmining industry and workers 100 per cent. Regardless of what spin anyone may hear, coal is going nowhere anytime soon. It will be here for decades to come. While people want to buy our coal, we will always supply them with our coal in the export market. Just because we introduce a piece of legislation aimed at protecting the environment and making better decisions, it does not have to impact the mining industry. There will still be coalmining in the Hunter and all around the country. There will still be copper, gold, iron ore and other critical minerals being mined all over Australia as well. Just because there are ways to look after the environment better that doesn't mean that anything has to change when it comes to mining, which, in many ways, our entire economy is heavily dependent on.</para>
<para>Let me be very clear about this: these new laws are about setting obligations for compliance, and I see no reason why any industry or business would be unable to meet the necessary compliance requirements while continuing to operate at their current capacity.</para>
<para>In order to make better and faster decisions about the environment, we need to make sure that we are getting the best information possible. Getting good information about the environment is also vital if we want to keep track of our progress in meeting the goals that we have set. This is where the head of Environment Information Australia will play an important role.</para>
<para>This will be an independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to EPA, the minister and the public. This information will be extremely useful and will help to inform investment, policy and regulatory decisions by government, the private sector, community groups, academics, scientists and other groups who are focused on the environment. Having this position will also mean that there will be nowhere for governments to hide when it comes to how we are progressing with our environmental goals. Independent, consistent and authoritative environmental reporting will mean that no Australian government can hide the truth about the state of our environment. It also means Australians will be kept in the loop by providing more transparency of the critical information and data that underpins the regulatory decision-making.</para>
<para>As Australians, something that we are most proud of is our landscape and our environment, and that is something worth protect. In my electorate, I have the biggest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere, in one part. Beautiful vineyards in the Hunter Valley in the other part, and some of the world's best horse stud. These wonders of nature have been able to coexist within the largest mining area in New South Wales. In the Hunter we are proud to say we are known wines, mines and equines.</para>
<para>This is an ideal outcome and this bill will help to make sure that more ideal outcomes will continue to be delivered. This bill is common sense. It makes sure that the laws we make are being followed and that our goals are being met, and it helps us to have access to the best possible information to make this happen. It's about helping to make the right decisions faster, and it's all for a cause that I don't think anyone can disagree with, making sure we better look after the environment. I commend this legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on these combined bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill. My concerns were triggered with the classic motherhood statement attached to this bill, 'nature positive'. I've read all about the nature-positive agenda that populates many extreme green websites and that is to turn 30 per cent of the known developed world into natural bush again. You can tell from the outset where this is coming from.</para>
<para>These bills as a whole deliver incredible powers to an unelected bureaucrat. There is a delegated authority being moved from the legislature—namely, us—and ministers, to unelected appointed bureaucrats. I don't like that principle. Our whole legislative process, at state level—New South Wales, in particular—and here at the federal level, over the last few years has had many more bits of important decision-making moved to unelected bureaucracy—rather than the minister, who actually has to face the people.</para>
<para>Governments come and go, and that is the beauty of a democracy. If the people of Australia don't like what's happening, they can vote people out. But you can't vote bureaucrats out; they are appointed. They are there. And, with the delegated authority, they don't have to answer to anyone. They only have to administer the incredible powers that they've been given.</para>
<para>The first of these laws creates or establishes another statutory body, an environmental protection authority, as well as its CEO and the powers that that CEO and any other delegated person in the organisation would have over nine environmental laws. We are very used to some things being signed off by ministerial subs—we've all been familiar with that—but once these come into full force, a lot of these things may not even reach ministerial level. They won't be assessed. There will be no-one to go to if you are a person who is getting an agricultural process underway or—shock, horror—a new housing development underway or a new freeway, a new port, a new mine, a new energy facility, a new powerline. It will be subject at a federal level in a duplicated system to what already happens at state level.</para>
<para>We have environmental protection agencies in many jurisdictions and this will be another classic case of the federal government knows best. They will come in, as the member for Hunter said, with teeth and the ability to give huge fines. People will not invest in this country anymore if we keep going at this rate. Existing businesses in this country, particularly in agriculture and the primary industries of fishing, forestry, of growing food and fibre, are being attacked on all fronts.</para>
<para>This cluster of bills will, I'm sure, send shivers down the spines of many people, because the delay in getting through another level of bureaucracy is going to be a huge cost and a huge detriment to anyone trying to develop things in this country, particularly after they have gone through the state and local government processes. It is not a free-for-all. There are so many restrictions, inquiries, evaluations. It is amazing anything gets done in Australia. The government is talking about this boom in rare-earth minerals and manufacturing things in Australia again, but, I'll tell you what, to get a mine up and running in Australia, it takes about 15 years. With this new bureaucracy, you could add another three or four at least, going on past experience.</para>
<para>Now, you've got to remember this is just another one of these very deleterious pieces of legislation. They are here already. I talked about the restoring our rivers bills. That sounds so beautiful—restoring our rivers. The Murray Darling will look like the Danube, the Rhine, the Mississippi, perfectly filled with flowing, bubbling, little fish jumping. There will be trees and everything will be wonderful, but what will happen? They are going to attack and take another 750 gigalitres of water out of the pool. What has happened already? The Barmah forest, the river red gums that are designed to be intermittently flooded are dying because there is so much water that used to be taken in irrigation to grow food—you know, the illegal substances of food, grains, crops—that depend on water. That bill has led to more and more irrigation water leaving valleys, leaving productive food and fibre, and the economy in those areas will weather as a result.</para>
<para>We also have the nature repair bill. What is wrong with restoring nature? There is nothing wrong with restoring nature. We have heaps of nature in Australia. I have read a lot of tourism magazines lately to see how we are being rated in international tourism, because that it is another huge industry in this country that we do well. In two UK and European surveys—in the last two that I've read—the No. 1 nature capital of the world is acknowledged to be Australia. That's how they see it. Compared to other countries that do rape and pillage, we have such a good legacy here already. We have got a national park system in every state. We have got a managed forestry system. We have got standards for irrigation systems. We have a well-managed Murray-Darling Basin. Though we have droughts and we have extremes of weather, these bills and this sort of mindset that we've got to regulate everything to death are going to be the death of our greatness. We will be doing what the member alluded to—this bizarre idea that we've got to turn 30 per cent of our productive land back to nature.</para>
<para>As I said, we have huge legacy native bush—unless you are trying to build windfarms, which they're doing in Queensland. At the moment, they get a leave pass from all these current approvals at state level in Queensland. There are several thousand kilometres of roads being built up and down the Great Dividing Range that have been approved under state code 23 without any environmental assessment, all because it's putting up renewable energy. But these wind turbines will only be producing energy about 30 per cent of the time. Once they're there, they destroy the native bush on these hills and on these mountaintops. The animals leave. The electromagnetic vibrations—animals that we see as Australian native classics, like the possum and the kangaroo, hear all this whirring. They don't like it; they leave. You can see the before-and-after pictures taken by Steven Nowakowski, former Greens candidate in a Queensland election, who's outlined all this environmental destruction.</para>
<para>We've got this bill coming in to give unelected bureaucrats huge powers, but the same machinery that's bringing this in is giving everyone a free-for-all in Queensland and the same in New South Wales. All the environmental processes are getting a red-carpet ride to get all these renewable projects approved offshore.</para>
<para>The Port Stephens offshore wind project off Newcastle, for which one exploration licence has already been approved, is in an area where you've got 10,000 whales travelling up and down, north and south, every year—at least 10,000. You've got a commercial fishing zone in the middle of that and the one off the Illawarra. They've got another one off Perth and off the coast of Gippsland—all these things that are really disturbing the environment.</para>
<para>These windfarms are massive. The ones that are proposed will not be at shallow depths close to the shore; they'll be 30 kilometres out. But they're so big you can still see them from the shore. That's how big they are. I can't imagine any fishing happening in these zones, because they've got exclusion zones around each one of them. The one off Port Stephens in Newcastle is earmarked to have up to 297 of these massive 260-metre-tall wind turbines. So there goes the fishing industry—the bluewater economy of Port Stephens. Half the commercial take on the north coast comes off that area. A billion-dollar industry based in Port Stephens will suffer, all because, if they actually survive a storm or an east coast low, they'll be intermittently generating electricity, when you could have a new power station built on dry land for much cheaper without any of this environmental ravaging.</para>
<para>It's a most beautiful place, Port Stephens and up into the Forster-Tuncurry area. You have got a state marine reserve. You've got a federal marine reserve against it. You've got Gould's petrel and other seabirds that are protected. You've got a series of islands. It's a nature wonderland, and they want to turn it into an industrial park out at sea. We have all this restriction coming with this legislation, but, again, renewables are getting a leave pass, and they're herding the bills through as quickly as possible. They have this obsession with building renewables.</para>
<para>Getting back to these bills, as you can gather, I have grave concerns about the loss of ministerial control over major environmental law and about handballing it to people who, once elected and appointed, don't have to answer to the communities. They can control all the information, get information on everything and gum up the works. We will have environmental lawfare and applications to the department. It won't just be the usual green lawfare; we will have a very aggressive, highly empowered, unelected bureaucracy duplicating what's happened at the state level. It will happen at the federal level. As I said, just about everything we want to develop in this country—our energy security, commercial fishing to feed cities and nations or recreational fishing, if you want to do those—will be limited by all these other renewable energy projects. I'd be interested to see what the new bureaucracy thinks about them and whether they will perpetuate this double standard that they're giving to renewable projects.</para>
<para>You can gather, Mr Speaker, that I don't approve of the bill, and I don't recommend it to the House. I think we should leave the approval at the one-stop shop. If you have one EPA in New South Wales, one in Victoria or one in Queensland, we believe in applying the same laws for everyone. You can't cherry-pick which industries get regulated to death and which ones get a leave pass. I'll leave it at that, but I definitely recommend caution. This is putting lots of rushed, angry types of powers into the hands of very powerful bureaucrats.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike the previous speaker, I do support the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and I do commend it to the House. When the Albanese government came to power, we promised to do this. We promised to deliver a strong national and, importantly, independent national Environment Protection Authority. It will be a tough cop on the beat to ensure that our environmental laws are upheld and adhered to. Today, I'm proud to support this legislation, because we're delivering on that promise. After a decade wasted by those opposite, marked by inaction and environmental decline, this government is continuing to get on with the job to protect our environment. We're implementing programs, projects, policies and actions that will create a nature-positive Australia. This side of the House want to see our precious natural landscapes be repaired, not continue to decline, as we saw under the Liberals and Nationals during their decade of environmental vandalism.</para>
<para>Our government has delivered the most environmental protection and reform of any Australian government before it. Our achievements are ongoing, and our plans clearly demonstrate our dedication to protecting and enhancing our environment. One of our landmark achievements to date is the establishment of the world's first Nature Repair Market. This innovative initiative encourages the restoration and protection of natural ecosystems by creating a marketplace for biodiversity credits. Repair market credits provide financial incentives for landholders to undertake conservation activities and restoration too. By valuing and trading the benefits of ecological restoration, we are creating new opportunities for investment in nature and ensuring our natural landscapes are preserved and enhanced for future generations.</para>
<para>In addition to the nature repair market, we have expanded the reach of our environmental laws to ensure that the minister for the environment must assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, which trigger our environmental laws. This expansion is critical for protecting our water resources, as unconventional gas projects can have significant and lasting impacts on water quality and availability. By requiring rigorous assessments, we are safeguarding our precious water resources and ensuring that any development is conducted responsibly.</para>
<para>Further, we've taken decisive action to improve the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, one of Australia's most vital and stressed water systems. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which the previous government didn't do much on, is now back on track under this government. We are committed to ensuring sustainable water management practices that support agricultural productivity and the health of our river systems. We've already taken strong steps, including increasing funding for water recovery projects and ensuring stricter enforcement of water use regulations.</para>
<para>We've also made significant progress in marine conservation. The previous government's decision to cut highly protected areas of marine parks in half was a severe blow to our marine biodiversity. In response, we have reinstated these protections and expanded them further. Our marine parks now cover more extensive areas, providing crucial refuges for marine life and helping to sustain healthy and resilient ocean ecosystems. Further, our focus on recycling and waste management has also seen substantial improvements. We have set ambitious recycling targets, and, unlike the previous government, we have backed these targets with concrete plans and funding to ensure their achievement. Our initiatives include the development of new recycling infrastructure, support for innovative recycling technologies and community education programs to promote recycling practices.</para>
<para>We have taken steps to address the critical issue of invasive species, which pose a significant threat to Australia's unique biodiversity. Our government has implemented comprehensive biosecurity measures to prevent the introduction and spread of these invasive species. We are also funding programs to control and eradicate existing invasive species, thereby protecting our native flora and fauna. In addressing air quality and hazardous waste, we have introduced stricter regulations and monitoring systems. That's all that we've done.</para>
<para>In this bill, Environment Protection Australia will oversee all of these regulations, ensuring that businesses comply with standards designed to protect public health and the environment. By investing in cleaner technologies and enforcing compliance, we are working to reduce pollution and its harmful effects on our communities and natural landscapes. Further, we are taking the vital step of establishing a national independent environment protection agency and creating Environment Information Australia. The EPA is the cornerstone of our environmental strategy, designed to provide robust independent oversight of our environmental laws. We urgently need the establishment of a national EPA due to the significant and persistent environmental challenges that our country is facing.</para>
<para>Our environment is at a tipping point. It's facing unprecedented threats from climate change, habitat destruction and a legacy of inadequate regulatory oversight. The 2021 <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">tate of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline><inline font-style="italic">nvironment</inline> report hidden by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition laid bare the harsh realities of the crisis we face. It painted a grim picture, revealing that our natural landscapes and ecosystems are in severe decline. Under the previous government's watch, we saw a shocking increase in biodiversity loss, with Australia now holding the unenviable record for the highest rate of mammal extinction globally. This is a direct result of unchecked habitat destruction, invasive species and the overarching impacts of climate change.</para>
<para>The need for a robust and independent EPA is further underscored by the systemic failures in our current environmental governance. Numerous audits have shown widespread non-compliance with environmental laws. It's unacceptable that one in seven projects using environmental offsets has breached their approval conditions. One in four has failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage they cause. This points to a regulatory framework that not only is ineffective but also encourages a culture where environmental damage is just seen as another cost of doing business. We know that public trust in environmental decision-making has been eroded after a decade of the Liberal-National government placing their ideology above science, leading to decisions that have helped harm our environment rather than improve it. The establishment of the independent EPA is a crucial step in restoring this trust. It will ensure that environmental laws are enforced transparently without political interference, holding all stakeholders accountable.</para>
<para>The EPA's primary mission will be to administer Australia's national environmental laws with the aim of better protecting our natural environment while ensuring that regulatory processes are streamlined and efficient. The independent agency will serve as a body responsible for enforcing these regulations, making it the cop on the beat that Australia needs to combat environmental violations effectively. One of its functions will be to deliver accountable, efficient and outcome focused decision-making. By doing so, the EPA will ensure that approvals are not only faster but more rigorous and transparent. This approach will provide greater certainty for businesses, reducing unnecessary delays while ensuring that environmental impacts are thoroughly assessed and managed.</para>
<para>Importantly, the EPA will also play a pivotal role in compliance and enforcement. The agency will need to have strong enforcement powers to ensure these laws are upheld. This includes the ability to issue environment protection orders or stop-work orders to address or prevent imminent significant environment risks and harms. Additionally, the EPA will conduct audits of businesses to ensure compliance with environmental approval conditions, using high-quality data and information to guide its actions. And, as an independent body, the EPA will operate free from political interference, ensuring its decisions are solely based on the scientific evidence and the best interests of our fragile environment. This independence is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that environmental laws are enforced without bias or favouritism.</para>
<para>The agency will provide regular reports to the government and the public, offering transparency and accountability in its operations. The EPA will work closely alongside the newly established Environment Information Australia to integrate environmental data collections, ensuring consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country. This collaboration will enhance the quality and accessibility of environmental data, supporting better decision-making and tracking progress against national environmental goals such as ours to protect 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030.</para>
<para>As the central hub for environmental information, the EIA will ensure our governance is grounded in transparent and consistent data, which is vital for making informed decisions. The EIA will be an independent entity tasked with collecting, managing and disseminating environmental data. The agency will work closely with Australia's top scientists, experts and First Nations people to gather comprehensive and accurate environmental information. By doing so, the EIA will ensure every decision the government makes regarding our environment is backed by the best available science and data. One of the primary functions of the EIA will be to provide this advice to the minister, to the EPA and to the public. This will support more informed and effective decision-making across all levels of government and industry.</para>
<para>For too long our environmental data has been fragmented and inconsistent, which has led to decisions that do not fully consider the overall environmental impact. The EIA will change this by integrating these data collections and creating a single source of truth for the state of our environment. This will play such an important role in our nation's environmental governance.</para>
<para>As we look forward, it's clear that our work on climate and the environment must be relentless. This is stage 2 of our <inline font-style="italic">Nature Positive Plan</inline> and a really important one to ensure the environmental laws that exist now and the environmental laws we are to create are adhered to. These challenges we face in the environment are immense and complex. The impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation are all interconnected, creating a web of issues that require comprehensive and sustained efforts. We cannot afford to slow down. This government's work is far from over. Each step we take sets the foundation for a more sustainable and resilient future.</para>
<para>My commitment, and the commitment of this government, to take action on climate change and the environment is not just a political stance; it's a commitment to our future generations and a commitment to the future of this country to leave our environment in a better condition than the one we inherited. We will fight against the Liberals' plans to oppose this and to delay our efforts to decarbonise our economy with renewable energy because there's no other option. The stakes are too high, and the consequences of inaction are too severe.</para>
<para>The Australian people expect and deserve a government that not only speaks about environmental protection but acts decisively to achieve it, based on the science. The path forward is clear. We must continue to implement and expand our reforms, ensuring that our laws and policies are robust, enforceable and effective. This includes the passage of this bill and the establishment of a national environment protection agency and Environment Information Australia, which will provide everything that the public, industry and the government need to comprehensively protect our environment. As long as I have the privilege to serve in this place, I'll work tirelessly to deliver the reforms we need to ensure we have laws that protect our environment for generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I open these comments by saying I support the amendments put forward by the opposition. I've become increasingly concerned that Australian environmental evangelists are intent on shutting down our economy. Australia has one of the world's highest standards of living, and I think it behoves us to reflect on how we got there.</para>
<para>I have a farm. In an average year it probably produces around 3,000 tonnes of grain. It would never have been there if we hadn't cleared the trees. We kept 10 per cent as shelterbelts, but you simply cannot develop a country unless you are prepared to accept a footprint. I would say on every level we have improved the country in so many ways. Who would want to drive through our country if it was just kilometre after kilometre after kilometre of trees? We've changed Australia and we've made it a productive place. That's why it supports 26 million people.</para>
<para>The environmental warriors, much to my concern, have taken advantage of and misused Indigenous peoples to lodge claims for land title to further frustrate investment and development in Australia—and today we're discussing more mechanisms that will place even greater burdens on those intent on contributing to our sovereign capacity. In my local area, it means we've had projects like a desalination plant proposed by the state government for Port Lincoln frustrated by the claims of Indigenous groups, backed by environmental groups. That plant needs to be completed by 2027 or it's envisaged we'll have severe water restrictions on the Eyre Peninsula. In my home town of Kimba, we've seen the same thing happen with the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.</para>
<para>In the wider context it means that, in Australia, resources industry projects like the Scarborough, Narrabri and Barossa projects have all been frustrated within the court system by claims that are nothing more than attempts to delay or derail the developments. Last week, when I was in the western half of my electorate, I had meetings with four councils, and three of them raised native title as a concern. That's because they have communities that have within them or are surrounded by Crown land, and what is now a consultative labyrinth has become a huge impediment to their ability to negotiate and progress approvals. And in that time the government withdrew the native title respondents' funds, so they're feeling like they're under siege. So employers and businesses are at their wits' end as they grapple with getting approval for ports, for the removal of vegetation, for mining, for transport, for labour hire—you name it. Could we in Australia possibly make life any harder for them?</para>
<para>You mightn't know this, Deputy Speaker Vasta, but I'm an amateur musician. I'm a great David Bowie fan, and David Bowie sang, 'It ain't easy to get to heaven when you're going down.' That's what Australian businesses feel like. It's pretty hard to get to the top when somebody's trying to drag you down the whole time.</para>
<para>Already in Australia we have seven state and territory environmental protection agencies, and the Minister for the Environment and Water is intent on establishing yet another, even though Professor Samuel highlighted the problem with the EPBC Act is that it duplicates state and territory processes for the development of assessment and approval. In fact Professor Samuel did not recommend the establishment of a federal EPA.</para>
<para>Despite the minister promising at a first press conference that not a minute would be wasted in saving the environment, it seems that two years later the minister is conflicted between her head and her heart, and that's why so little has happened. Now she knows not where she wants to go but is determined to make some kind of statement. So we have this, 'We will have the formation of a federal EPA and another agency to go with it,' just to be seen to be doing something.</para>
<para>I have raised in this place before, the trend in Australia for the divestment of ministerial responsibility. The public has a view that they elect their members to come to Canberra and they will somehow be able to have a say in the regulations that affect Australia. As a farmer, I can remember saying many times, 'Why do they do this? Why do I have to fill out that bit of paper? Why does this all happen? Why do I have to do this for somebody who wouldn't know anything about my business?' And, of course, when a newly elected member gets here they're quite surprised to find that none of this stuff happens in Parliament House. It's all being farmed out to faceless bureaucrats, as a rule, whether it's compliance in the workplace, the road rules or heavy vehicle regulations. There's also accreditation on everything, whether it's operating aged care or operating child care.</para>
<para>Then we've got this government proposing that businesses on the ground will have to deal with scope 3 emissions. Does anyone in the government have any idea of how scope 3 emissions will affect small businesses in Australia? Whatever someone makes, they will have to provide documentary evidence of the embedded carbon within their inputs. How will they compile that? How will they determine what the embedded carbon was in their inputs? There's no other way. Their suppliers will have to provide their own documentary trail. And that's how it will find its way right down the food chain to the smallest producer of anything that ends up in the pie, as it were.</para>
<para>Here, I'll take us back 30 years. Let's go back to John Hewson's birthday cake. I don't know what kind of cake it was. I like chocolate cakes myself. But I do know that it would have needed flour, eggs, milk and sugar. Or perhaps you could even buy a packet mix. It might come from Sara Lee. So if Sara Lee is trying to put together the packet mix, they will have to account for the embedded carbon of the ingredients. What do you make flour out of? Wheat. Let's go back to the farmer. How much fuel did you use? Was the chemical made from oil? Did you have to work your paddock more than once? It is an impossible conundrum. They'll have to go to the dairy and ask what the cows have been eating when they had a night off on Saturday night. They'll have to go back and check out what happened with the sugar and the eggs. Are they free range eggs? Perhaps they were barn laid eggs. Perhaps that will make a difference. Perhaps the feed mix will make a difference. This is just an impossible conundrum for Australian producers to deal with.</para>
<para>Now, on top of the creation of the federal EPA, the minister also wants to establish yet another government committee—Environment Information Australia—as a separate body, and even more regulations, more reports, more accounting and more expense. About the only growth industry around here is going to be accounting. I wonder why our per capita productivity in Australia has fallen off a cliff. There was a 3.7 per cent decline in per capita productivity last financial year, and it is difficult to believe at the moment that it has improved since that time, I'd have to say.</para>
<para>As to the policing of these new rules, the enforcement of all these regulations is outsourced to a multitude of committees made up of bureaucrats with little understanding of what it's like to run a business. I will put a question—a theoretical question: what's the best kind of day for a bureaucrat? I can tell you: it's a day when nothing goes wrong. A perfect day is when nothing goes wrong—or, at least, nothing that can be attributed to them. Sadly, this is what leads to nothing much getting done. Decisions are delayed, and the consequences are that it just gums up the whole system. Decisions inevitably resemble an enigma wrapped in an obfuscation inside a box of conundrums. It is just impossible for people trying to run profitable businesses to keep their head above water. They feel like they are under siege.</para>
<para>This proposal puts the CEO of the proposed EPA beyond the reach of the minister. A person with the power to stop any project, anywhere, at any time, at their discretion, is beyond the reach of the minister. What a perfect handball for people who do not want responsibility! As I've said, it's the divestment of ministerial responsibility. A reasonable question would be: Why on earth do we need a minister at all? Why get yourself elected to parliament if you want to palm everything off? I got elected to parliament because I actually wanted to have a say in these decisions.</para>
<para>Since this government was formed, in those two years, there has been almost an industry of referrals, of new regulations, of new committees, to govern the way in which we live here in Australia. Nothing was more obvious. This proposal, like so many of the government's recent decisions, was discussed with very few indeed, and then behind closed doors.</para>
<para>We've heard this recurring theme, as with the vehicle emission standards, where the major importers were told, 'Shhh! Don't tell anyone!' and with the safeguard mechanisms and the religious discrimination proposals. I think one of these mobs—I can't remember which one it was—had to leave their phones at the door, for crying out loud! We were told that the bishops of Australia couldn't discuss with each other the proposals for the religious freedom bills.</para>
<para>This week we've seen it again, with the vaping laws that the government announced that are going to put the sale of vapes into every chemist's shop. That came as a great surprise to the pharmacists, just as the double dispensing debacle did eight months ago or whenever it was.</para>
<para>On every level, this legislation is a lemon. It can do nothing but gum up investment and confidence in Australia. It'll be successful at that, but not at too much else.</para>
<para>We, in opposition, are right to oppose it. We are right to campaign for Australia's future—to try and keep us in that top handful of countries with the highest living standards in the world and not to drive our productivity through the floor. It is why the opposition has taken the stance in the last week to say that we back nuclear energy in Australia, because we do not want to see the industries, the manufacturers, the people that actually provide the jobs in the economy in Australia, driven to the wall. We do not want to see them driven out of the country.</para>
<para>This kind of legislation will only drive investment in Australian projects offshore. The projects won't happen. You'll get companies like BHP and Rio Tinto—those big investors in Australia that have fully mobile capital—going to where they'll get the best returns. We do have the advantage in Australia, normally, of having what we call a solid political pathway, where there's not too much variation—where governments don't penalise companies that invest by changing the rules on them. Sadly, that is changing. The Australia of the last two years is a changed place; people no longer have confidence in it. It's why we've seen the collapse, for instance, of exploration and approvals in the gas industry. That is coming home to roost with a raft of other industries, and I just briefly touched on the energy suppliers in Australia.</para>
<para>So this is bad legislation. The shadow minister has put up some amendments which we believe will make the sow's ear a little more attractive, but, at the end of the day, it ain't gonna be a purse.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's almost exactly a year ago, I think, that I stood here in this place speaking about the Nature Repair Market Bill. That was the first stage of the Albanese government's bold Nature Positive Plan. Despite all the bluster that we get from those opposite, the opposition, we got on with the work over the last year of putting environmental protection and biodiversity, in conjunction with business and First Nations people, at the centre of our environmental agenda. That's what happened over the last year, which is testament to the good work of the minister and all of the government as a whole.</para>
<para>That important work continues with stage 2 of the Nature Positive Plan, which is before the House today. Many of us on this side have spoken many times about the commitment to making sure our shared natural environment—the rivers, the parks and the reserves—is better off for future generations. I know that in my electorate and all around the country—and I'm sure many others in my electorate of Wills agree—all of those spaces and habitats are such important places for native flora and fauna. Those shared spaces also have an enormous positive impact on the health and happiness of residents. Just walking through them makes a difference to one's mental health, certainly.</para>
<para>In my electorate, the investment that we've made, the Albanese government has made, to the Moonee Ponds Creek, in improving it, has been remarkable. It's all about regenerating native species, including the threatened growling grass frog—I must say I haven't seen one yet, but I'm waiting to see one—native turtles and birdlife right along the creek while also improving the community's access and enjoyment of the shared, open green spaces and removing the concrete that was put in place in Moonee Ponds Creek many decades ago. It's so important for the local community to enjoy the native flora and fauna. It's so important for young schoolkids to be able to explore and understand the environment better. It makes such a difference. Stage 1 opened up private and public investment and introduced the water trigger, and today we turn to improving transparency, education and compliance through what we're debating today.</para>
<para>The Albanese government will create two new bodies, as we know: the Environment Protection Agency and Environment Information Australia. These are the centrepiece of stage 2 of the Nature Positive Plan, a compressive approach to fixing environmental law in Australia. The EPA will have those strong new powers and penalties to better protect our natural environment, and the EIA will provide government and the public with high-quality environmental data, increase transparency and improve access to scientific data.</para>
<para>The government released its response to the Samuel review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back in December 2022. Professor Graeme Samuel AC found: 'The EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform.' Well, we've set about doing that. The EPBC Act was not delivering for the environment, the community or business, and the Albanese government and Minister Plibersek have introduced the Nature Positive Plan. This staged package of reforms is all about protecting the natural environment, increasing transparency, cutting red tape and establishing the EPA, as I've said.</para>
<para>Stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan came into effect in December last year, in 2023, and it included the crucial establishment of the world's first nature repair market and the expansion of the water trigger. The nature repair market has brought together private companies, conservation groups, farmers and landowners to fund real-world projects to improve biodiversity and restore and protect the environment. It has brought business, agriculture and rural communities together, and it has been central to unlocking investment and delivering long-term outcomes. Unlike those opposite, as I said, and all the bluster that we heard from them when we introduced this last year, we recognise on this side of the House the incredible value of centring Indigenous Australians in these projects as well and listening to their knowledge and experience of the land, while also embracing employment opportunities in the regions.</para>
<para>The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, which we are debating, delivers on this promise by establishing the EPA. The Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 delivers on this promise by establishing Environment Information Australia, the EIA. And the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 provides the powers to the minister to address many of the unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues related to transitioning to the EPA.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>115</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to put on record my strong support for the coalition's nuclear power plans and the idea of having nuclear power generation within Australia. Nuclear has delivered so many benefits to so many countries around the world and humanity in general. The splitting of the atom has led to nuclear science, nuclear technology and nuclear medicine. All of us benefit inherently from nuclear fission. Nuclear power generation should not be off the table for ideological or arbitrary reasons or simply because a political party has decided that they don't like it.</para>
<para>The science is absolutely clear that nuclear power will be an integral part of humanity's future. That's not just my view; it's the view of many important people and scientists around the world, including in the countries that are using it. But, if you don't like listening to people from a political party, listen to Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I believe nuclear energy will be one of the most important energy sources for centuries to come, long after the oil and gas and coal have run out or run down to a smaller amount nuclear energy will still be available. It is really important that we perfect this technology and make it as safe as we possibly can and constantly work on making it safer. It is the safest already of all the major technologies but it's because I believe it is here for the long term and because it's clean and sustainable that I support it.</para></quote>
<para>Whatever angle you come at this issue of power generation in Australia or Australia's future, if you want to see emissions come down, or indeed Australia ever meet our emissions reductions targets, nuclear will be an essential part of the mix. I don't believe it's bold to say that. Most countries are off track to meet their emissions reductions. There is no credible plan to meet emissions reductions. Nuclear power is one way that Australia can meet emissions reductions, as well as generate power and provide for our security.</para>
<para>Given we have so much of the world's uranium, gas and coal, how can it be, and how can this parliament look itself in the face, that we charge our domestic population through the nose for power from any source? The government say they are succeeding at their plans, but taxpayers paying the bills for expensive energy is not success. Success will be driving the price down. Despite so much gas, coal and uranium, and so many renewables and so many billions of subsidies in renewables for solar and wind, we're still charging pensioners through the nose to heat their homes in winter. We're still bankrupting families with bills that are eye-watering at the moment. It isn't acceptable to the public; it shouldn't be acceptable to the parliament; it wouldn't be acceptable to any rational government that was focused on delivering a better benefit for Australians.</para>
<para>Cheap energy costs is one of the advantages that drove this nation to become prosperous and successful, and it can be again. Nuclear will play an important role in this regardless of this government's opposition. I can say I am proud of the Liberal and National parties for stepping into this space. This policy is here to stay. This policy will remain with the Liberal and National parties for decades to come. This will become part of Australia's energy mix. I think it will become integral to Australia's power generation. Labor premiers think that as well. Peter Malinauskas thinks that, and he says it publicly. He has no problem with a nuclear power generation site in South Australia. One of the sites we have announced that will be looked at for technical feasibility is in South Australia.</para>
<para>This is a very important point: when you look down the generations, I find that young people in Australia today are very open to the benefits of nuclear power generation. They understand nuclear science, nuclear medicine and nuclear technology. They know that this is driving humanity forward. Given that all of the top 20 advanced economies in the world have nuclear or are moving towards nuclear, it's inconceivable that Australia won't do the same. We need the states to lift the bans. We need to have a multiplicity of efforts here. We're going to have nuclear powered submarines. We already have a nuclear reactor in Australia. We have nuclear technology. We're all benefiting from the benefits of the nuclear industry worldwide. We can benefit greatly from nuclear power as well.</para>
<para>So I call on the government to drop the hysteria, to drop the really, really dumb arguments that are not based on science, not based on facts and are not really credible for something so important to humanity. Nuclear power will be part of Australia's energy mix. I don't believe that is controversial to say. It will happen. It is a question of how quickly can we get it to happen, because, if we don't start now, we won't have it in decades to come. If we had started decades ago we would have it today and, given its vital role that it will play in Australia's future, we need to be moving on this. I commend the opposition for bringing this policy forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government came to office in 2022 with a remit to bring with us to government kindness and positivity, a remit that saw us face challenges and find solutions and bring people with us. I'm a proud member of the Albanese Labor government working hard to meet our challenges. Some of those challenges have been economic, some have been around climate change and some are around the international space in which we find ourselves, but I'm very proud to be part of a government that has taken those challenges seriously and attacked them creatively.</para>
<para>One of those challenges has, of course, been inflation and the cost of living. On 1 July, five of the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief measures come into effect. The important one—the tax cuts for every taxpayer—as well as a pay rise for low wage earners of 3.75 per cent, a freeze on PBS medicine costs, power bill relief for every household, and a two-week extension of paid parental leave come in on 1 July. This of course builds on the work we have already done, like cheaper child care, which makes such a difference in the community like mine that I represent with so many young families.</para>
<para>It is less than a week until this 1 July date, until 13.6 million people get a tax cut. The Albanese government's tax cuts will provide much-needed relief for all Australia's taxpayers. In my community, that is 95,000 community members in Lalor who will save an average of $1,441. This is going to make a difference to people's weekly incomes in my community. It comes on top of a pay rise for 2.6 million Australians, the third pay rise for our low-wage earners, and on top of a 15 per cent pay rise for the aged-care workforce, which has made a considerable difference in communities like mine.</para>
<para>As well as that, we have cheaper medicine. It has been a big fortnight in Lalor. We had an exciting visit from the Prime Minister to discuss the government's commitment to delivering cheaper medicines, which meant that PBS medicines went from $42.50 down for the first time to $30 and now that has been frozen. When the Prime Minister came to Lalor, he attended a Terry White chemist where he met locals Susan and Stephen Foster, who, amongst many Lalor residents, will benefit from the freeze on the maximum cost of the PBS medicine. Already in Lalor, $2.1 million has been saved from the cheaper scripts. I want to thank particularly Brian Nguyen from Terry White Chemmart for his warm welcome for the Prime Minister and all those who were working in the pharmacy that night and to those customers who were there that evening too, who made the Prime Minister so welcome in our community.</para>
<para>We have done these things as well as the power bill rebates on 1 July, the $300 rebate for every household on their power bill and, of course, that includes small businesses. That is $3.5 billion in energy bill relief for every single Australian household and one million eligible small businesses.</para>
<para>In our communities on Monday, there are going to be changes that will make things easier for people in my community. With inflation running at 3.6 per cent, the decision to deliver a 3.75 per cent pay rise for low-income earners is going to actually make a difference, not just in that first pay cycle but going forward.</para>
<para>We know that easing the cost-of-living pressures for all Australians is our No. 1 priority at this stage. As a government we want to bring positivity to the work we do every day, as we battle, plan and implement for so many areas across the country. But our No. 1 priority, obviously, has been that cost-of-living pressure for households across the country. In my community, I know that this Monday is going to be a big day for many people and a change in the way they think and act.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker—and to all who are listening before the State of Origin—Australia only has one job and that is to become as strong as possible, as powerful as possible, as quickly as possible. The world is changing. It is changing very quickly, but it's following a very reliable path in history with the waxing and waning of powers and how things ebb and flow. To become a powerful nation, you must have the feedstock of what makes a powerful nation.</para>
<para>Tonight, in inflation figures we hear that power prices have gone up by 6.3 per cent in the assessment of the increase in inflation. Now, I don't want that. This means in the best way—the best litmus test, rather than the to-ing and fro-ing throughout the chamber and everybody selecting things—we must ask this question: is one major manufacturer in the world making their way to Australia because they believe we've got it right? Not one. Who is actually leaving Australia? Our plastics industry, our aluminium industry, our oil refining industry—and now our food processing industry.</para>
<para>Those who might want to cause us harm would be sitting back and laughing at us. Now we have this intermittent power lobby that has hold of the government—billionaires wanting to turn themselves into multibillionaires. In my electorate, where a lot of this future obsolescence is going to be cast, we have the Hills of Gold Wind Farm about to be approved. The government's solution is swindle factories covering the horizon, up to 230 metres high to the top of the blade, and then fields of a new photovoltaic black in the valleys, and, connecting them, a cobweb of filth, of transmission lines. And there is this perverse belief, like tulip mania, that we are going to run a modern economy on a windmill.</para>
<para>Every now and then a country loses its mind, and we seem to be doing that right now. What is it going to take for people to understand the paradox, the irony, that we've just been talking about a so-called 'nature-positive bill' yet we are allowing this intermittent power lobby, who are so good at lobbying with the orange lanyards. They are so good at schmoozing their way through this building.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Charlton</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Remember the $100 leg of lamb? Remember that?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What we have to ask ourselves is: how is removing all the environmental conditions—so one tower, one raptor per year is perfectly acceptable! Removing vegetation in rainforests is perfectly acceptable! Drowning people out, drowning areas out is perfectly acceptable! Completely imposing yourself on the free property rights of people in regional areas is perfectly acceptable! However, the virtue does not extend to metropolitan suburbs. Not one wind tower do they want at Middle Head or off Manly or off Palm Beach or in Parramatta—not one. It would be obscene; they would never get re-elected. So where do they dump them? They dump them in regional areas.</para>
<para>We have to clearly understand, this path is insanity. You have no chance—none, zero, zip—of reaching 82 per cent renewables. And there is nothing renewable about them. They go to landfill. It's just nomenclature—'windfarms'? What do they grow—spuds, carrots, peas? You have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. But you are not going to reach 82 per cent. It is just insane.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Charlton</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Scandalous misinformation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take the interjection from the member for Parramatta, because he wrote a brilliant article back in about 2013 in support of nuclear—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Charlton</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was 2011; 15 years ago.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was great, 96 pages of it. It was an absolute splendid rendition of why we should go down the nuclear path. In our area, we see this quite simply: if we don't have nuclear, we're going to get more of this swill, more of this intermittent power lobby running this parliament. They've guilted you into not asking the forensic questions about exactly how they operate. We've had hidden from us the actual returns they're getting, and we've made a path for billionaires to become multibillionaires because they're running on the shirt tails of our guilt trip.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  That was an extraordinary display that we saw from previous speaker, the member for New England. Let's be frank: he builds this persona of the Aussie larrikin from the bush who understands the regional folk. He puts the Akubra hat on and the cowboy boots on, but does he actually understand those from the bush?</para>
<para>The impact of climate change is having a direct impact on farmers. When we look at the droughts, when we look at the floods, when we look at the extreme weather events that we are having, they're directly having an impact on those he purports to have this strong affinity with. If he had a strong affinity to those rural and regional folk who live off the land and who have to rely so much on weather events, then he would be at the forefront of acting to address climate change. But instead he comes in here and blusters around wind farms and solar panels. He has an ideological opposition to renewable energy.</para>
<para>It makes you wonder: Do the coalition actually believe in climate change: Do they want to address climate change? Do they want to act to ensure that we are moving off fossil fuels? If you are to go by their energy plan, you would have to wonder whether or not they even believe climate change is real. If they thought it was real, then they would address it—not in decades to come, not in some never-never fairyland; they would address it now, with technology that we have now, with technology that has been proven and already exists. Instead they come up with a nuclear plan.</para>
<para>I'm no expert on nuclear, so I will quote an expert. Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, from Griffith University, has said that nuclear energy in Australia is 'legally impossible, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible'. If we are to go off what the experts say—I'm not going to purport to be an expert here—then how about we also take the word of the former Treasurer and former Minister for Energy for New South Wales Matt Kean, who is also a Liberal Party member. When he was asked about nuclear energy in his state, he said he had an open mind to it. He said, 'I didn't want to bankrupt the state … And I didn't want to put those huge costs on to families.'</para>
<para>Nuclear energy is not going to be possible until decades down the track. Let's look at the example of what is happening in the UK. Costs have blown out significantly. The budget has moved from a cost of 25 billion pounds to an estimated 35 billion pounds. And the Hinkley Point C reactor will now be ready several years later than estimated. It's extraordinary that the party of the free market is now in favour of total government takeover of the energy market, in favour of building nuclear reactors at significant costs to taxpayers when we have renewable energy options and there is significant private investment taking place. Their plan now puts all of that investment in jeopardy. The reality is you cannot have both nuclear energy and renewable energy. Nuclear energy runs consistently; it can't be turned on and off, so it cannot coexist like you think. Australia boasts abundant natural resources such as solar and wind which can be harnessed to create a sustainable energy future, so why do those opposite insist on going down this path of lunacy? It has to be asked who are they being led by, because it certainly isn't the experts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water Safety</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had the immense privilege of attending the awards ceremonies for the great Bate Bay surf clubs of Cook. North Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club formed in 1925. Wanda Surf Life Saving Club formed in 1946, and Elouera Surf Life Saving Club formed in 1967. The surf lifesavers in my electorate keep the electorate safe. There is a sense of community in these clubs, a sense of family and a sense of service. Each season, surf lifesavers spend in excess of 650,000 voluntary hours patrolling the most accessible and inaccessible beaches in New South Wales. I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise some exceptional individuals from the electorate and from these clubs.</para>
<para>Firstly, at Wanda Surf Life Saving Club, there is the lovely father and daughter duo: the Junior Lifesaver of the Year, Sienna Dunham and the Open Lifesaver of the Year, Mark Dunham. There was the Golden Cap Award to Glenn Bell and the CV Forshaw Award to Kaylene Walker. There was an award going to the outgoing patron of 26 years, Ernest 'Solly' Stephens, who still has a cold ocean swim every morning—even in in 90s. There was the presentation of three new life members: Greg Pierce, James Traves and Grant Sandstrom. At the Australian championships in Queensland in 2024, they also had a number of people win Aussie championships. Ben Sutton won the Champion Lifesaver. The under 14 two-kilometre beach run was won by Kyah Gallen. The under 14 two-by-one-kilometre beach relay was won by Kyah Gallen and Layla White. The under 17 board rescue was won by Otis Jessop and Dane Sutton. The under 15 two-kilometre swim was won by Charlotte Bowmer. The under 14 and 15 Cameron relay was won by Charlotte Bowmer, Jade Seidel, Piper Phillips, and Poppy Hulbert. The open female five-person R&R was won by Emily Caterson, Amelia Dann, Isla Jokhan, Katie Spinner and Joanna Stravrou. The Curlewis six-person mixed R&R was won by Emily Caterson, Brock Douglas, Blake McCrindle, Kurt Melville, Grant Sandstrom, Stuart Smith and Gordon McKirdy.</para>
<para>Secondly, I also had the honour of attending the North Cronulla Surf Life Saving club's awards nights. The Junior Surf Lifesaver of the Year went to Cody Edson. The Senior Lifesaver of the Year went to Mark Anders. The Junior Club Captain went to Harry Payne. The Senior Club Captain went to Dan Lawson. There were a number of awards for 10 years of service with 100 per cent attendance at patrol. They went to David Cannings and Anthony Sobb. The Major James Perryman Award also went to Anthony Sobb. The Norm Rees Award went to Alison and Michael Bofinger. Also at North Cronulla, there were a number of Australian champions who were crowned Australian champions in Queensland. The under 15 female beach flag went to Scarlett Hoerr. The under 17 mixed five-person R&R went to Ella Murdoch, Milly Newton, Layla King, Kirra Hodge, Lily Thearle and Kristine Whitford. The under 19 mixed five-person R&R went to Ashlyn Lloyd, Milly Newton, Layla King, Kirra Hodge, Lily Thearle and Kristine Whitford. The reserve grade male surf boat short course went to Chris Sims, Corey Dietrich, Pat Hunt, Ben Robson and Michael Bofinger. The reserve grade male surf boat went to Chris Sims, Kobi Markey, Pat Hunt, Ben Robson and Michael Bofinger. The under 17 male beach sprints went to Kobe Sorensen. The under 14 mixed two-person R&R went to Sophie Heron, Anna McCrone and Karen Goman. The under 19 male surf board riding, open male long board and open male short board riding all went to Cruz McKee.</para>
<para>To Elouera: the Open Athlete of the Year was Charlie Morris; the Water Man of the Year was Mitch Green; the Water Woman of the Year was Mikaela Mead; the Most Outstanding Male Beach Athlete was Peter Thoroughgood; the Most Outstanding Female Beach Athlete was Sabina Rogers; the Most Outstanding Masters Competitor was Sean Green; the Most Outstanding Boat Competitor was Sam Cohen; the Tim Nesbitt Rookie of the Year was Jonah Chapman; the Most Outstanding Trainer was Mark Taylor; the Most Improved Trainer was Rob Van Der Sanden; the Junior Patrol Person of the Year was Austin Alexander; the Patrol Person of the Year was Patrick Hughes; the President's Trophy went to Kiara Summers; the Encouragement Award went to Stephen Urquhart; and, lastly, the Outstanding Contribution in Club Contribution and Service went to Kaitlyn Byrnes. I look forward to attending Cronulla's awards night in the coming weeks.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parramatta Electorate: Religion</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I recognise the contribution of the churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues in my electorate. Let me begin with a simple observation that in my community these places of worship are epicentres of goodness and inclusiveness. No individual or group is perfect, but in these institutions of faith we get closest to our ideals of dignity for ourselves and compassion for others.</para>
<para>Religion fosters a strong sense of community. It brings people together, creating a network of support and belonging. In my electorate the churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are not just places of worship; they are vibrant community centres where friendships are formed, where young people are mentored, where the elderly are respected and learned from, where new migrants are welcomed and where the vulnerable receive support. These are places where people come together for families' most joyous celebrations and life's most difficult moments.</para>
<para>Religion also benefits our community by instilling and reinforcing morality and ethics. The teachings of various faiths encourage compassion, empathy and altruism. Religious morality is both the historical source of our modern legal framework as well as a complementary contemporary guide for moral choices that sit beyond the scope of laws. Religious principles play a crucial role in moulding the moral framework of any community.</para>
<para>Religion also promotes individual physical and psychological wellbeing. It offers answers to some of life's most profound questions, gives meaning to personal and communal experiences and aids individuals in their journeys of personal growth. Spiritual guidance and regular committed religious observance and activity has been shown to lead to greater psychological wellbeing and resilience, enabling individuals to better cope with the challenges of life.</para>
<para>Religion is also a major source of community service and philanthropy. Research consistently shows us that the more actively religious someone is, the greater their individual charitable activity and generosity. In Parramatta religious organisations are at the forefront of charitable activities. Religious organisations provide care for the young, support to the elderly, food for the hungry and housing to those in need. These acts of charity and volunteerism not only address immediate needs but also build stronger communities. During COVID, communities of faith supported thousands with food, comfort and company.</para>
<para>Finally, religion enriches cultural identity and diversity. We treasure our multiculturalism in this country, and the truth is that the link between culture and faith is strong. Each faith brings with it unique traditions, festivals and rituals that enhance the national cultural tapestry. These cultural expressions foster a greater understanding and appreciation of our diverse world, promoting peaceful coexistence.</para>
<para>In these ways religion delivers positive benefits to our community, and the purpose of stating these benefits is not to ignore the positive contribution of secular institutions and individuals, nor to claim that religious institutions are flawless. Rather, my purpose is simply to recognise that institutions of worship are one of the most important sources of social capital in our community. What flows from that recognition is a concern that religious freedom and religious conscience be protected and an imperative that we create a positive space for public morality based on religious beliefs to be advocated for in the public domain.</para>
<para>Governments have an important role to protect religious freedom and support religious communities and associations. First, governments should provide support to religious schools. Millions of Australian parents choose religious schools in part because they value the moral framework the school creates. Governments can support these school by providing financial support, and by protecting their autonomy to build authentic communities of faith they can operate out of their religious doctrine and ethos. Second, governments can support religious freedom in religious practice and expression, both corporate and individual. Religious leaders gathered in my electorate last month to express their concern that the freedom of religion is being incrementally encroached upon by government legislation. Religious freedom should be absolute insofar as it relates to internal aspects of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and any limitations of the right of people to manifest their beliefs and practice their faiths must be imposed only when necessary to protect public safety or to avoid a material and disproportionate infringement on the fundamental rights of others.</para>
<para>I believe that religion should never be used as a wedge or a divider. It should be a unifier. Religion reminds us that our world is bigger than ourselves.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Karen Andrews ) took the chair at 09:30.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 26 June 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(Hon. Karen Andrews</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Antarctic Program</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was alarmed to read in the media last week that the Western Australian government is looking to snatch the Australian Antarctic Program away from Tasmania. I was alarmed because Hobart has long been Australia's gateway to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean. All that could now be at risk due to the bumbling incompetence of the Tasmanian government and the greed of TasPorts. The problem is that Macquarie Wharf No. 6, which is the icebreaker RSV <inline font-style="italic">Nuyina's</inline> home berth, is riddled with concrete cancer and now can't even sustain the weight of a Toyota Hilux.</para>
<para>This hasn't popped up overnight. The Australian Antarctic Division and others have been warning TasPorts for years that the current infrastructure is inadequate. Indeed, in 2018 TasPorts launched its Port Master Plan to improve Hobart's port infrastructure, with Macquarie Wharf being identified as a critical site to upgrade to help grow the Antarctic sector. Moreover, Infrastructure Australia's projects page shows that in 2021 a five-year timeline was allocated to the wharf redevelopment with a price tag of $150 million. No wonder I was shocked when I heard that the federal environment minister had sent a letter to Premier Jeremy Rockliff accusing TasPorts of price gouging and calling for the state government to intervene in the stalled negotiations between TasPorts and the Australian Antarctic Division. It is price gouging because the demand that the federal government provide $515 million for upgrades to the wharf is ridiculous, especially when the fault lies solely with TasPorts and the state government for letting it get to this stage in the first place.</para>
<para>The Antarctic program is vital to understanding the frozen continent. Hobart is recognised internationally as a centre of excellence for Antarctic science and research. Indeed, Tasmania has the world's best Antarctic scientists, and the program provides many hundreds of jobs in the state, but the cracks are starting to appear. If Tasmania were to lose the Antarctic program it would genuinely be a dreadful blow to the Tasmanian economy and community. I don't doubt that all parties want to keep the Antarctic program in Hobart. It's just that the impasse between the federal and state governments over the facilities for the <inline font-style="italic">Nuyina</inline> and the attempt by TasPorts to price gouge is threatening Hobart's status as the Australian—and, indeed, key international—gateway to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean. While I urge the federal government to bring more to the table, they at least have said they wanted the vessel berthed in Hobart and have committed $240 million for work at Macquarie Point, which means the onus is well and truly on the state government to intervene and direct TasPorts to reach a compromise with the Australian Antarctic Division.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bleasdale, Councillor Tony, OAM, Coral McLean Awards, Bowen, Mr Ross James</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the beginning of May our community lost a great person in Tony Bleasdale, the mayor of the city of Blacktown. He was always and remains in people's memories as a fundamentally decent and loving person. Tony was first elected to council in November 1996, serving several terms before becoming Mayor of Blacktown City in October 2019. He was always giving and generous. He was always there for our people. He was never afraid to speak up, believing he had a role to play, as well, in advancing social justice for so many across our community. During his distinguished council career Tony helped deliver many projects and improvements to the community that he loved. For example, he promised to keep all our council workers employed during the pandemic, and he absolutely did so. In 2010 he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his support of charitable organisations and contributions to local government.</para>
<para>At a personal level I always thought the world of him and I was very lucky to know him. I extend—like our city does—our sympathies and love to his wife, Nina; his children, Frank, Cathy, Nick and Christina; and all their beloved grandchildren.</para>
<para>I recently also had the honour of hosting the annual Coral McLean Awards, which are dedicated to the memory of the late Coral McLean, an icon in the Chifley community. The awards reflect and celebrate the selfless contributions of women in our area who are helping improve the quality of life in so many of the neighbourhoods in the Chifley electorate, and it was a great time to reflect on the impact that they're having. I want to extend my congratulations to all nominees, whose tireless efforts had not gone unnoticed, but I give a particular congratulations to Aaliyah Filipe, awarded the Coral McLean Award for her work in empowering over 1,000 at risk young people in our area; Mary Vincent, Chifley Woman of the Year, a volunteer at Mt Druitt Palliative Care Unit who goes above and beyond to help patients, families and carers; and, finally, Emiline Babi, an aspiring student at St Bishoy College, who was awarded Chifley Young Woman of the Year for her work mentoring students and fostering a love of sport and physical activity. I thank the performers from Shalvey Chance2dance, as well as our guest speaker, the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, who spoke warmly about the value of volunteers for their quiet and selfless work. Congratulations to everyone who was nominated and to all the winners. Our community is better because of you.</para>
<para>Finally, just on a personal level I formally acknowledge the passing of Ross Bowen—to Christine; their kids, Paul and Chris; and grandchildren, Gracie and Max. Ross, we are grateful for your service in Western Sydney and on the Central Coast, and we will always remember you warmly.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to talk once again about the dire need to address regional road safety. I've previously spoken about the need to seal and widen roads across my electorate of Durack that have presented serious safety concerns, and I've been pleased to have successfully advocated for many vital upgrades.</para>
<para>Today, however, I'd like to focus on a longstanding issue where progress unfortunately has not been made. What I'm talking about is the necessity to improve level-crossing safety through better train illumination. Between 1 July 2014 and 31 December 2022, across Australia's level crossings there were 7,839 near hits, 322 collisions, 39 fatalities and 49 serious injuries. These numbers are a stark reminder of the urgent need for improved safety measures. Currently 80 per cent of Australia's 23,000 railway crossings lack warning lights, which are crucial for trains to be adequately lit to prevent accidents. This is an issue that has impacted far too many families.</para>
<para>On 8 July 2000, Christian Jensen and his friends Jess Broad and Hillary Smith all lost their lives when their vehicle was hit by an unlit train in the WA Wheatbelt. A coronial inquest into the accident found that no-one in the car had seen the train approach, due to an absence of train lighting and warning signs on approach to the crossing. The 2001 inquest recommended all locomotives be fitted with external lighting, in addition to ditch lighting, to effectively warn motorists of their approach. These recommendations were never legislated by the government despite poor visibility of trains being an exhaustively documented contributing factor in this accident and others around Australia.</para>
<para>Lara Jensen, the sister of Christian, has, along with other affected families, been advocating for these changes for decades. Their lived experiences and these tragedies highlight the human cost of inadequate train illumination. In Australia there is no legal requirement for trains to be lit to a particular standard. In contrast, oversized trucks are required by law to be fitted with flashing beacon lights, and all trailers must be fitted with mandatory side lighting. Last year Lara, as a spokesperson for the Improve Train Lighting And Passive Level Crossing Safety group, wrote to Minister King, calling on the government to legislate lighting standards.</para>
<para>I'd like to bring to the attention of the House that soon there will be a petition launched to parliament requesting the House to immediately implement legislation requiring rotating beacons and side lighting on locomotives and rolling stock to improve safety and reduce preventable accidents and fatalities at railway crossings. Any action that can prevent loss of life must be considered, and I'd like to thank Lara Jensen and her family for continuing on this crusade.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Glen Waverley, Nunawading Spectres Tournament</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am so delighted to be collaborating with the Glen Waverley Traders Association to encourage people in Chisholm and right across Victoria to shop local, love local and visit the incredible local businesses in Glen Waverley. Glen Waverley is a buzzing multicultural hub of spectacular local businesses. With world-class restaurants, cosy cafes, unique retailers and passionate professionals, there is something for everyone in Glen Waverley. It was great to connect with local business owners that are part of the Glen Waverley Traders Association in and around Kingsway in Glen Waverley recently. Walking around Glen Waverley brings up lovely memories of visiting restaurants and cafes in Glen Waverley when I was growing up. I still regularly visit Glen Waverley cafes and restaurants and when I'm catching up with friends and family. It was terrific to hear from the businesses about their very deep connections to the community and their real love of Glen Waverley. I encourage everyone to visit Glen Waverley, shop local and love local.</para>
<para>Nunawading Basketball, in Burwood East, is one of Australia's largest and most successful basketball programs. They are the home of the Melbourne East Basketball Association, its representative teams and the legendary Nunawading Spectres. They facilitate basketball competitions and programs for nearly 12,000 players, coaches and officials on a weekly basis. Over the recent King's Birthday weekend, Nunawading Basketball hosted Australia's largest community basketball event organised by a single association. The annual Nunawading Spectres Tournament continues to grow each year, and this year an incredible 11,158 participants were involved in the tournament. They represented 1,031 teams, including 408 interstate teams. This was the biggest ever tournament in the event's history, which is quite amazing. The record-breaking tournament spread across 20 venues and 74 courts in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. It was also great to see that the number of young women involved in community basketball continues to grow; 43 per cent of participants in this year's tournament were female.</para>
<para>I want to congratulate Nunawading Basketball and Melbourne East Basketball Association on the runaway success of the Nunawading Spectres Tournament. To organise so many players and teams is an incredible feat, and I thank everyone involved in the tournament for their hard work and look forward to seeing what next year's tournament delivers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Grey Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday I had a visit from Qantas representatives to inform me that they are retiring their Q200 and Q300 QantasLink aeroplanes around Australia and replacing them with Q400s. For those of you who are interested in such things: a Q300, for instance, can have about 50 passengers and the newly configured Q400s will have 78. Grey is serviced by Qantas in Port Lincoln and Whyalla, and I've spoken many times in this place about the challenges, particularly for Whyalla, of the withdrawal of finance from the federal government for the security scanners at the airport. In Whyalla, this will be generally welcomed, but it comes with a bit of a kick: we're going to have to replace the strip. It's called 'strengthening' the strip, but, when I spoke to the council, they said it's reached the point where it will have to be ripped up and completely relaid. They don't have current figures on what that's likely to cost, but Qantas tells me it's somewhere around the $10 million mark.</para>
<para>I'm here to tell the people of Australia that the people of Whyalla simply cannot carry that cost on their own. Currently, the scanners cost $1.1 million a year to operate for about 14 or 15 flights a week. That is incurring a $45 outgoing cost on passengers, who are carrying that load. For people in Whyalla, businesses may be able to carry it, but you also get people who need to go to Adelaide for medical services, family reasons and things like that, and it's quite an impost. On top of that, the council tells me that, while Qantas through their ticket prices are paying for that, the council is actually running a $1.16 million deficit on the airport. Whether it comes out of the ticket seats or from the ratepayers to pick up the deficit at the airport, we cannot continue to load the people of Whyalla with what is an essential service.</para>
<para>Whyalla gets mentioned very often by both state and federal governments as a place of new investment, particularly around hydrogen, green steel and renewable energy. They say it's going to be one of the economic drivers of our state. I'm here to tell the people that it's time for both of those governments to put their money where their mouth is. They can talk about these things, but they cannot unload this cost on Whyalla. Essentially, I'm asking for fifty-fifty funding for them to get their act together. Qantas wants to have these aeroplanes in place by the end of this year. There is a bit of a phase-in period, but I'd suggest that we've got about 12 months to get this right, and we need both governments to step up to the plate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fremantle Electorate: Arts and Culture</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Live music has long been the lifeblood of Freo social and cultural vibrancy. Fremantle has fostered generations of incredible songwriters and musicians, from Bon Scott to San Cisco, from Kavisha Mazzella to Lucky Oceans, from the Jam Tarts and the Nansing Quartet to Kevin Parker and Tame Impala and Spacey Jane. All those musicians and all the many more people for whom music is a core part of their joy in life depend on live music venues and on the organisations that support engagement in music.</para>
<para>Last week, it was a privilege to attend the WAM Song of the Year event, which involved songwriting entries from artists as young as 12 and as old as 79. It was held at Freo.Social, a fantastic venue previously known as the Fly by Night Musicians Club, and I'm proud that, once upon a time, my dad played a role as chairman of that legendary institution.</para>
<para>Last week, when the Prime Minister was in town, I was rapt but not surprised when he named Clancy's and Gage Roads as his favourite WA watering holes. In the past, I have enjoyed a beer with the PM at Mojos in North Fremantle, when we listened to local Beaconsfield band Terrible Signal.</para>
<para>Labor understands that we can't continue to enjoy the musicians that Australians love if we don't support the long-term sustainability of live music venues. That's why this government has created a national music development agency, Music Australia, to support and invest in the Australian contemporary music industry. The most recent budget included $8.6 million to provide support to those businesses through the new Revive Live program. Last year, I visited Clancy's to hear about the $16,000 in investment that they received to upgrade their live music space. In the latest round of the Live Music Australia program, jazz venue the Duke of George, in East Freo, received $64,000 for new upgrades and performance funding, while the Gypsy Tapas bar in downtown Freo received $17,000 for essential performance equipment.</para>
<para>In addition to making sure that venues stay strong, we must make sure the arts are accessible to all. As the Minister for the Arts rightly says, arts and culture belong to everyone. That's why I'm glad that DADAA, a nation-leading disability arts organisation in my electorate, received $826,000 for Radio DADAA. It's a new internet radio station to grow the digital skills of people with disabilities while creating a broadcast platform that will elevate their voices. That's in addition to the three-year core funding of over a million dollars that DADAA has received.</para>
<para>I want to finish by acknowledging the incredible leadership and commitment of music venue managers and their staff—people who inevitably make sacrifices through their devotion to music. The Albanese government sees and hears very clearly the critical importance of Australia's artists but also the fragility, sometimes, of our cultural industry's ecosystem. That's why we're acting concertedly and with appropriate funding to provide more and better support for Australian live music.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Naval Shipbuilding Industry, Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Naval shipbuilding is vitally important for our national security and for our defence capability—defending our nation and our interests. It's also vitally important economically for our industrial capacity. As an MP from the city of Adelaide, it's acutely important to the economy of my home city. We are very proudly at the centre of naval shipbuilding—in the southern hemisphere, not just for the great nation of Australia. We're building the frigate program, and we'll also be building the future AUKUS nuclear powered submarines, at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia. That involves putting nuclear reactors in the belly of those submarines. That will be happening within the city limits of metropolitan Adelaide. It is a safe undertaking; it is one that the people of Adelaide have embraced and are not fearful of.</para>
<para>Behaviour from some, particularly in the government, over the last week calling into question the safety of a nuclear industry is extremely irresponsible and reckless and needs to be utterly condemned. In particular, there are members of the executive of government that have been spreading fear about the safety of nuclear reactors. I make the simple point that the local member for the electorate that will be constructing the future nuclear submarines is also the Minister for Health and Aged Care of the nation. I have not heard him say anything irresponsible whatsoever about the safety of nuclear reactors, and I commend him for that, but I call on him to condemn members of his own party who are suggesting that there is something unsafe about nuclear reactors. I call on him to send a clear message to his constituents and the people of greater Adelaide, including my constituents, that it is completely farcical and fraudulent to suggest that there is any safety risk whatsoever to a responsibly managed nuclear industry. I call on him to make sure that constituents in the health minister's own electorate know that they have nothing to fear whatsoever about the great economic and industrial opportunity that is coming their way through the installation of nuclear reactors into submarines in the health minister's electorate.</para>
<para>The Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Prime Minister should condemn members of their party, and the Prime Minister in particular should condemn members of his own executive, that have made utterly fraudulent claims about the safety of the nuclear sector in this nation. This is something that is way beyond the pathetic student politics that has been engaged in particularly through social media. I send a very clear message to my constituents and the people of Adelaide that they have nothing to fear about the great opportunities of a nuclear industry in our home state of South Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The push by the major banks to phase out the use of cash and cheques, close down bank branches and remove ATMs is causing widespread inconvenience and anger throughout the community. For some people it is making their lives extremely difficult. In particular, elderly people and migrants who are not internet savvy, who simply don't trust an internet system that they don't understand, who are fearful of being scammed, and who know that every internet transaction exposes them to internet surveillance, are becoming anxious. Simultaneously, business operators know that, in the midst of a power or internet failure, they will be unable to operate their business, and some have paid dearly for such events already.</para>
<para>This issue was the subject of a recent Senate committee inquiry that tabled its report last month. I share many of the concerns raised in the course of that inquiry. Firstly, the withdrawal of cash means that every person will need to have a bank account to function in Australian society. Secondly, every person or entity will have every financial transaction recorded. Privacy will be a thing of the past. Even worse, no-one will know who has access to their financial transaction records and personal affairs. Thirdly, once banks have control of every financial transaction, new and increased transaction fees will be imposed. It is already happening, with card transaction fees being charged or increased. Fourthly, for people with no internet or mobile device, life will become extremely difficult.</para>
<para>In days gone by, the use of cash also enabled people to better manage their money. People could physically see how much money they had left. The use of cash taught people to be more prudent with their spending, and people were not getting into the financial difficulties that we often see today with the use of credit cards. The committee's report states that, based on APRA data, 2,100 bank branches closed between 2017 and 2023, equating to 40 per cent of branches in metropolitan areas and 35 per cent of branches in regional Australia. Many of the bank branch closures in country towns have often directly contributed to the demise of those towns.</para>
<para>Furthermore, the number of businesses that no longer accept cash has also grown. For some businesses, there are legitimate security and safety reasons why they prefer to be cashless. However, I don't believe that that is the primary reason for the banks phasing out cash and closing branches. Adding to frustrations, Australia Post, that was once often filling the gap caused by bank branch closures, is now on a nationwide post office branch closure program. Calls to ensure that cash not only continues to be made available but cannot be refused as a form of payment for essentials are growing louder.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chinese Labour Corps and Chinese Anzacs</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I want to shed light on a frequently overlooked aspect of Australia's rich and diverse history. These are the war heroes known as the forgotten Chinese Labour Corps, who shared in our nation's foundational story. They embodied courage and mateship and sacrificed so much during the most challenging of times. From Gallipoli shores to the Pacific battlefields, they demonstrated unwavering bravery and absolutely shared in our very proud Anzac spirit. The Chinese Labour Corps endured difficult and dangerous conditions during World War I. More than 140,000 Chinese labourers were estimated to have worked alongside Australians, Brits and French and Russian troops, digging our trenches, unloading our ships and burying our dead.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">The Forgotten </inline>is a book by historian Dr Will Davies that honours their service and brings their important story to the public eye, contextualising the story within the broader history of China's interactions with western European nations since the 1700s. The story of how 140,000 Chinese labourers came to be involved in the Western Front is one that really puts the global involvement of World War I into perspective. It was the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of these settlers who volunteered to fight for Australia in the First World War. <inline font-style="italic">The Forgotten </inline>celebrates the shared history between China and Australia and their combined efforts to promote peace.</para>
<para>Recently I met with Mr Albert Wong, who advocates for the Chinese Labour Corps and Anzacs, and he shared his vision of building a statue in honour of these forgotten heroes. While there is at present a monument in Sydney's Chinatown commemorating Australians of Chinese heritage who served in the war, their sacrifice should be acknowledged on a national level at the Australian War Memorial, something that both Mr Wong and author Dr Will Davies are advocating. Renowned sculptor Linda Klarfeld has designed a statue depicting an embrace between a Chinese Anzac soldier and a member of the Chinese Labour Corps who supported the war effort. Such a monument at the Australian War Memorial would stand as a testament to the inclusive spirit of the Anzac tradition, reminding future generations of the importance of unity and mateship in the face of adversity, and it would highlight the great sacrifices made by many ethnic groups and backgrounds during the Great War.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cowan Electorate: Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I firmly believe that every member of this parliament, regardless of their political stripes, knows or at least should know just how tough many Australians are doing it with the cost-of-living pressures these days, and I know that in Cowan it's no different. I see that every time I go to my local shops and see people at the check-out making decisions that, frankly, they shouldn't have to make. I see that and I recognise that, because I understand that I've had to make those decisions in the past in my life too.</para>
<para>We know that Aussies are doing it tough right now. That's why our government, the Labor government, has taken action to ease the cost of living for Australians. In just four days time, on 1 July, around 83,000 Cowan constituents will get a tax cut. That's going to make a real difference to their cost of living. And, since coming into government, we've supported not one, not two, but three increases to the minimum wage, with the latest being a 3.75 per cent increase in the minimum wage. These kinds of increases in minimum wages often impact women more disproportionately because women tend to be in those lower paid workforces. We're also giving every Cowan household a $300 energy rebate, and that comes on top of the $400 energy rebate from the Cook Labor government. So, together, Western Australian households will be getting $700 in energy bill relief.</para>
<para>Importantly, we're freezing the cost of PBS medicines, because we believe everyone should have access to affordable health care. Pensioners and concession card holders will not pay more than $7.70 for their PBS medications for the next five years. In fact, the people of Cowan have already saved $1.9 million from our commitment to delivering cheaper medicines. We're delivering more free mental health services, higher Medicare rebates for common medical tests and a $160 million women's health package. We're delivering more help for renters in Cowan. All of these policies build on other cost-of-living measures that the Labor government has undertaken since coming into office.</para>
<para>Labor has a proud history of backing workers and backing the most vulnerable people in our society. It's who we are, it's in our DNA, it's what makes us Labor and it's what drives us to make a real difference to the people in my electorate of Cowan.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>125</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7212" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>125</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It us 2024, the year of the summer Olympics in Paris, and I must say the Albanese Labor government are doing a great job of honouring the Olympics this week. It has been the week of backflips. They would be looking good on the floor at the gymnastics. We've seen the backflip on vaping—they changed their position on that yesterday, and we've now seen the backflip on union demerger rules. We see these backflips because this is a government that was on the wrong path from the start of their term and have now lost their way.</para>
<para>This is a very significant backflip by this government and it leaves a lot of questions that need to be answered. It's also a confusing backflip because it directly contradicts the wish and the will of the CFMEU. Zac Smith, the National Secretary of the CFMEU said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The bill restores now-repealed Coalition-era powers to undermine unions and singles out the CFMEU to allow a ballot after the manufacturing division's multiple failed legal attempts to do so.</para></quote>
<para>He then said the bill sets 'a dangerous precedent'.</para>
<para>Why have they changed? Is it politics? Is it optics? Have they suddenly found a moral backbone after years of lawlessness from the CFMEU to stand up to them? I don't think that's the case. I think we have a situation of politics at play here and it's a very interesting test for those opposite. Their union, the CFMEU, is directly against this decision. So there's now a question for those opposite. Do they cross the floor and vote against this bill? Do they cross the floor and support one of their unions or do they follow the leadership of the Prime Minister and the minister?</para>
<para>We learnt yesterday that the rules of the ALP no longer apply. Those opposite now have the ability to cross the floor and defy the Prime Minister, with no consequence. We know that; we saw it. No longer can those opposite hide behind collectiveness, hide behind the party rules of the ALP. They have to make a decision, particularly those that are members of the CFMEU. Are they going to support their union or are they going to support their leadership? That is the question that we will see from those opposite, as they can now defy their Prime Minister without consequence.</para>
<para>I'm a cynic when it comes to these things, because in 2020 the coalition brought this legislation forward. They introduced legislation to give unions the opportunity to demerge if it was no longer serving the best interests of the members to be part of that union. In 2021, during the Special Platform Conference, the Australian Labor Party outlined as part of their further industrial relations policies: 'Union demerger reform—reversing the Morrison government's legislative changes that make it easier for unions to demerge.' In 2020, the coalition brought the legislation in. In 2021, there was the ALP policy to reverse the change. ALP came to government in 2022, and the law was changed.</para>
<para>In February of this year, Senator Lambie put a bill to the Senate to reinstate the demerger laws, and she spoke about the challenges, in particular, for the textile workers and the clothing and footwear sector in being part of the CFMEU. I'll get to some of those challenges in a moment. But those opposite voted against that. They wouldn't allow that legislation to change. That's despite John Setka, one of the leading figures in the CFMEU, having a well-documented history of domestic violence and abuse towards women. They were happy in February this year to support John Setka and the CFMEU. They were happy at the last election to take $4.3 million in donations from John Setka and the CFMEU, despite his well-known history of domestic violence and abuse towards women. They were happy to do that then.</para>
<para>But suddenly now, in June 2024, they're going to defy John Setka and defy Zach Smith, the National Secretary of the CFMEU, and they're going to backflip. Why? It's because of the thuggish behaviour of John Setka to target Stephen McBurney because he had the audacity to take a job. He had the audacity to fulfil a role, and the unions want to harass him and punish his new employer, the AFL. Suddenly the unions aren't worried about due or fair process. They're now happy for someone to lose their job at an organisation because of something they did at another job. That is the hypocrisy of the union movement and the CFMEU.</para>
<para>The reason I'm cynical is: how can you support a person that has a track record of domestic violence but suddenly backflip? Is it the politics of it? I'm a Melburnian, and we love our AFL. It's part of who we are and what we do. There was front page after front page about the thuggish behaviour of John Setka. In all of those articles also was a refusal by the Prime Minister; the Premier of Victoria, Jacinta Allan; and any minister opposite to condemn John Setka and his attack on the AFL and an innocent person. They wouldn't condemn him; they didn't have the courage to condemn him. This week the Prime Minister did not have the courage to stand up to John Setka.</para>
<para>But the headlines continued, and the pressure continued. Two weeks later, we see this bill in this House to show that they are doing something, and this is where the cynic comes in. The real question is: What's going to happen in the future? Are they going to quietly, in six months time, change the legislation and drag out the process for the textile workers so nothing can change? Will they wait until the heat dies down, bring it back in, ram it through with their numbers and do a sweetheart deal with a few on the crossbench to get it through? Well, let's see.</para>
<para>As I said, they are a government that weren't prepared to stand up to John Setka, despite his record of domestic violence and abuse towards women. But, apparently, they will now stand up to him because of a few headlines in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline>. That's why I have no faith that this bill, when passed, will actually last any significant amount of time. The fact that those members opposite who are also members of the CFMEU are prepared to defy their national secretary and not cross the floor, despite having no consequences, tells you that the fix is in. We will continue to watch with interest.</para>
<para>Let's understand why the coalition in 2020 brought this change in, why Senator Lambie introduced her private senator's bill in February this year. We know those opposite repealed the change because of $4.3 million from the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is part of the CFMEU, and it has the greatest number of women in it. After the merger, the textile, clothing and footwear sector moved into the CFMEU's offices. One of the union secretaries from the textile, clothing and footwear sector told the<inline font-style="italic"> Age</inline> newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"It was a male-dominated space," she recalls. "He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse."</para></quote>
<para>One of the union reps stated, in regard to the workplace culture of the CFMEU:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building.</para></quote>
<para>These quotes were on the record in February of this year. Senator Lambie spoke, in relation to her private senator's bill, about what had been happening. Her second reading speech detailed Mr Setka's reprehensible behaviour towards women, including these quotes, yet those opposite then would not support Senator Lambie's bill. That is the hypocrisy of the ALP and those opposite. They will support John Setka. They will leave the textile union workers hanging out to dry, having to leave their offices because of jokes about domestic violence. But, when the political heat gets too much, then they're prepared to change. That's something those opposite will have to look in the mirror and make a decision about. Apparently $4.3 million from the CFMEU and the support of the union are more important than standing up against someone who has a record of domestic violence and who intimidated female union members, on the record. That was on the record in February when they voted against the bill. That's why you can't trust those opposite. You can't trust that this bill is actually going to last. As I said, what happens when the political storm dies down? That's why they've brought this in—to die it down. Let's watch, as I said.</para>
<para>As I referenced previously, Stephen McBurney is being targeted for his employment at the AFL, but he is being targeted for the lawful job he did as part of the ABCC. Mr McBurney has umpired over 400 AFL games as well as four grand finals. He is well qualified for the job. He earnt that role at the AFL on merit. Trust me, as a Victorian and a Collingwood supporter, I know it's a tough job being an umpire in the AFL. But that doesn't mean he deserves to be targeted by John Setka. He took cases from the ABCC to courts, and in 91 per cent of those cases it was found that there was a breach of the Fair Work Act. He was doing his job. But what did Mr Setka say about Mr McBurney in his new role? I apologise in advance about some of the language I'm going to use, but I'm going to directly quote Mr Setka because we need to understand the man that those opposite support. This is a quote from Mr Setka: 'We have an obligation to pursue antiunion, antiworker fuckers like him and we will until the end of the earth. This is going to cost the AFL a lot of fucking money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without our full co-operation are going to be a fucking misery for them. They will regret the day they ever employed him.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll ask the member to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a direct quote.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's still unparliamentary language. I ask you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll withdraw, and I'll repeat it again nicely. 'We have an obligation to pursue antiunion, antiworker effers like him, and we will until the end of the earth. This is going to cost the AFL a lot of effing money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without our full cooperation are going to be an effing misery for them. They will regret the day they ever employed him.' I guess we know why Mr Setka never ran for parliament—he clearly wouldn't be parliamentary—but that behaviour is apparently acceptable.</para>
<para>He's targeting an innocent man to make an example of him and to show any other Victorian, any other Australian, that if you try and stand up for workers, if you try and enforce the rule of law, the CFMEU will chase you and will get after you. This is intimidation. This is a deliberate attack on Stephen McBurney, but it's also sending a message to other Australians that, if you try and do a legitimate job, protect workers and protect the rule of law, you will be targeted and chased for the rest of your career. It is a disgrace that that person is trying to do that to an innocent Australian. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>.<inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, we're here debating the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024, a bill which the government has surprisingly brought forward into the parliament to allow for the demerger of unions, a position which they've bitterly opposed—or, should I say, have been told to oppose by their masters, the union movement, who fund them, get them elected and require significant repayments in return.</para>
<para>We see, as these other industrial relations reforms have been brought before the parliament, it's been an unequivocal requirement for the Labor Party to return to their paymasters what was required for those donations to their campaigns. The union movement is proud of this. They come into the galleries to witness the Labor Party pass legislation that they are told to by the union movement. They celebrate it, and they remind themselves that those donations they give to the Labor Party are very good investments because they can certainly achieve whatever they want from this government in return.</para>
<para>We have a unique situation where this government has been shamed into pursuing this legislation, which is something that is against their platform and certainly against the better judgement of their paymasters, in the parliament, but the behaviour of Mr Setka has become—I won't say 'so extreme', because it's always been this extreme—so publicly revolting and grotesque that it is absolutely untenable for them to resist taking action. What has Mr Setka done? All he's done is publicly discuss what has been the modus operandi of the CFMEU and their predecessor organisations for decades and decades. Previous Labor leaders stood up to them much more effectively, particularly Bob Hawke. Of course, when the old brickies union used to behave like this, Bob Hawke kicked them out of affiliation with the Labor Party. The punishment here is pretty timid, but I suppose the strategists in the government believe that this might at least help them survive some press conferences when they get queried and questioned about the disgusting, despicable and deplorable behaviour of particularly John Setka, but there are many more in the CFMEU.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's your bill. If you're—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Right, there we go. You should be proud of that. This bill comes before us because what John Setka has done is said that people that are his political opponents—or, indeed, organisations like the AFL which aren't renowned for being political whatsoever—or particularly against the current government on the issues that are important to them will be punished by the union if they have someone in their employ who the union does not like. And what John Setka has done is publicly ventilate the business model of the CFMEU. In a way, some of us always knew what their modus operandi was, but now, of course, it's much more publicly known: they will punish you if they don't like you. They will punish businesses that they don't like—just ask the Grollo Group in Melbourne. That's one of many examples. If you don't do what they say and if they can't push you around, then you'll be punished. Your costs will go up, your projects will be more expensive, and there'll be significant delays. John Setka laid this out with a degree of pride. The member for Casey just articulated, in some colourful language, what Setka very proudly and publicly said would be the punishment to the AFL if they didn't do what they were told to by the CFMEU.</para>
<para>It's just utterly disgraceful and deplorable that this kind of conduct occurs, and now we have a situation where the government has been shamed into bringing a bill before us to allow one element of the CFMEU to leave it. How is it that the law of the land doesn't allow this to happen as it is? How is that we need to pass legislation? It's currently illegal for the old TCF, who I know very well—I worked in the textile industry, and that union were the union representing the workforce at my company—to leave the CFMEU without legislative change. This is a free country. This is a country that should believe in fundamental principles of freedom of association, and that's not just the freedom to join a union or not but also the freedom for unions to organise how they see fit.</para>
<para>We as a parliament have to change the law because it is illegal for a division of the CFMEU to break away. They find the conduct and behaviour of this union to be so abhorrent and members of its leadership to be so vile and disgusting that they don't want to be associated with them anymore, and they have to come to the Labor government and say: 'Hey, you know that policy that you don't support—to allow us to freely demerge from a union? Well, we'd like you to change your tune on that.' Thanks to significant media coverage about the grotesqueness and disgusting, vile behaviour of John Setka and his cronies, the government has decided that, despite in principle not thinking that a union should be free to demerge—to de-amalgamate—in this case it's hard to defend that in a public setting during a press conference so they'll allow this brief little window of opportunity through the legislation before us to go through the parliament despite opposing it when Jacqui Lambie brought a similar bill forward in the Senate—because the behaviour of John Setka has gotten to the point where it's indefensible.</para>
<para>John Setka was already a disgrace. We already knew that. The member opposite was just bragging about the fact that he was kicked out of the Labor Party, as if they're really tough on these brutal, nasty, awful union leaders that behave in such an appalling way and make jokes about domestic violence and the treatment of women. To trivialise that is pretty low. This guy is still the leader of a union affiliated with the Labor Party, so the CFMEU can still finance the Labor Party in their election campaigns. We had the Prime Minister in question time yesterday bragging about the way unions like the CFMEU are going to be campaigning on nuclear policy. So they're mates with John Setka when he signs the cheques and runs the campaigns that they want, but then they've got this tough talk when he mocks and trivialises domestic violence and when members of another union want to leave a union that he so insidiously controls and can't bear to be in the same building or the same room as him. That's the legislation that we've got in front of us right now.</para>
<para>We shouldn't be having to legislate to allow the free de-amalgamation of unions. It should already be the law of the land, and it should be a permanent right of unions to organise however they want. It shouldn't be legislated, and we shouldn't have to be debating right now an approval for them to separate from the CFMEU. The CFMEU have got form in this area. In my home state of South Australia, the state chapter of the CFMEU has been taken over by John Setka and the Victorian branch. We had a guy called Aaron Cartledge, who was the state secretary of the South Australian union, but John Setka didn't like him. So he got dumped. Instead, the Victorian division of the CFMEU said: 'We're going to take over the South Australian division of the CFMEU, and it's going to be run by the Victorian division of the CFMEU. That's how we're going to organise in South Australia.' Then that Victorian division of the CFMEU—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10:24 to 10:36</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In conclusion, in Adelaide we have the threat via John Setka that the new headquarters for the Adelaide Crows team will be sabotaged, disrupted, delayed and have enormous cost blowouts. If the AFL doesn't dismiss a very innocent employee of theirs whose great high crime was legally working for the Australian Building and Construction Commission, then that will be the punishment meted out by Mr Setka and his thug mates at the CFMEU. This behaviour is completely disgusting and utterly unsurprising. It underscores why we need to bring back the ABCC. And it definitely underscores the importance not only of passing this bill but also perhaps of the government recognising the fact that it should never have been illegal in the first place for unions to have the right to demerger, particularly in circumstances such as this one. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 is an important bill. It's an important bill for a number of reasons. First of all, it shows the abject failure of the government to defend the right of Australian workers to go about doing their job without being intimidated by union bosses. What we've seen is the worst kind of intimidation by John Setka and the CFMEU.</para>
<para>There are a couple of points to note here. First of all, while this bill goes a little way to addressing this, it does not go far enough, because the demerger power should be available to all unions across this country so that, when we see the type of lawlessness and thuggery that we're seeing at the moment, it can be dealt with. It is especially important when you look at the CFMEU, because a large part of the workforce represented by the CFMEU is those female workers who work in the textile industries. Why should they have to put up with the intimidation of John Setka and his thugs? Why should they have to be a party to that? Why shouldn't they be allowed to demerge? Why shouldn't other unions be in a position to be able to demerge when this type of lawlessness takes place?</para>
<para>It's also important in that it recognises once again that the government's approach of ceding so much power to union bosses is failing Australian workers right across the country. The reason we're seeing this, more than any other reason, is what has been happening to real wages since this government came to power. Real wages have gone down. What did the Prime Minister say before the last election? 'We're going to make sure that real wages go up.' Well, what has happened in the two years since Labor have been in power? It doesn't matter how they try and spin it by saying, 'Trajectories are looking positive.' I can tell you: Australian workers aren't worried about trajectories. What they are worried about are the actual facts, and the facts are these. In two years of Albanese Labor government, what has happened to real wages? They have gone down. And that is not what the Prime Minister promised—which, once again, shows that the whole industrial relations approach by Tony Burke, about saying to union bosses, 'We're going to give you unfettered power,' has not worked, because the real outcomes on the ground are that real wages, under this government, have fallen, and no amount of spin can get away from those facts.</para>
<para>Let's look at what the CFMEU have been doing with the unfettered powers that they've been given. The most recent example is that of the intimidation against Stephen McBurney. Let's look at Stephen McBurney. Stephen McBurney has umpired over 400 AFL games, as well as four grand finals. Now, as a passionate Richmond supporter, I cannot say that Stephen McBurney has always got every decision right—okay? But I can say that he has been dedicated to umpiring for a very long period of time and has been recognised as having excelled in his profession, because not every umpire gets to adjudicate on four grand finals. You have to be very, very good at your profession, and Stephen McBurney has shown that because he has been given the great honour of umpiring four AFL grand finals. Yet what do we see? Because he undertook lawful employment as head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which was set up to provide for lawful activity on building sites, John Setka and the CFMEU are going after him. They're intimidating him. They're trying to say to him, 'You should not go about your lawful work.'</para>
<para>I think one of the most disappointing things—and there are a couple of disappointing things, but one of the most disappointing things—was the reaction of the Prime Minister when John Setka came out and said, 'We're going to try and intimidate Mr McBurney out of his profession.' The Prime Minister's response was really, really weak. Rather than saying to John Setka, 'There is no place for your language; there is no place for your intimidation,' and showing real leadership, the Prime Minister almost didn't want to comment on what was occurring. And that was pretty sad.</para>
<para>The other thing that is disappointing—and the two are tied, I think, and this is something that the Australian people need to recognise—is that the CFMEU continue to provide funds, donations, to the ALP. What real leadership would look like is having the Prime Minister stand up and say to John Setka: 'No prime minister will tolerate that type of language and that type of intimidation. And not only that; as a real show of leadership, we are now going to say to the CFMEU: "We will not take your money. If you are going to continue to use the tactics that you use—in many instances, breaking the law—then we will not take your money, because this type of behaviour cannot be tolerated."'</para>
<para>Yet have we seen the Prime Minister show that type of leadership? Sadly, no, we have not. And why? Because, whether we like it or not, the ALP is fully addicted to union donations and they cannot, even in an instance where you're seeing this type of intimidation, cut that umbilical cord between the union funds that flow into ALP coffers and the union influence that results in terms of dictating policy outcomes to the ALP Labor government as a result of that funding. It's time that the Prime Minister showed the type of real leadership that the Australian community is looking for, and stands up to John Setka and his union bovver boys, because we need it.</para>
<para>I'll end here: why is this important? Why is it really important that we have these demerger powers? Why is it really important that we should have these demerger powers across the board? It's important because in a cost-of-living crisis we need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to help improve the real wage outcomes for Australian workers and to improve the costs that everyday Australians are paying at the moment for everything right across the board.</para>
<para>It's of particular importance at the moment when it comes to the construction industry, because one of the things that is occurring at the moment and is occurring at pace is the lift in housing prices. The sad reality is at the moment that for many, many young Australians, that dream of owning your own home is disappearing. It's disappearing because costs continue to rise within the construction industry, costs continue to rise for small businesses involved in the construction industry and costs continue to rise when it comes to major construction in the building industry.</para>
<para>What is one of the largest contributors to those costs? It is the CFMEU. The impost of regulation, the impost of intimidation and the impost of not been able to move without the unions coming down—especially on small businesses—is driving costs up and up and up in the construction industry. That is meaning that the price of building a home continues to rise. The price of building rental accommodation continues to rise, and that is taking that dream away from young Australians of owning their first home, of owning their first flat or of owning their first unit. That is the real crime of the Labor Party's addiction to union funds and to giving unions more and more power, especially to those bosses.</para>
<para>That is why we will support this bill and it's why we will put forward necessary amendments, because it's not only the demerger power that's needed for this one-off example with the CFMEU. It is needed across the board because we want to make sure that real wages go up—as the Prime Minister promised—but at the moment, sadly, they are going down. And we want to make sure that when it comes to that Australian dream, especially for young Australians, of being able to own your first home that we will be able to do the things that are necessary to make that dream a reality for young Australians—not what this government is doing, driving prices higher and higher and making that dream an unreality.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise as a proud Melburnian. There are many assessments about the size of Melbourne. On some assessments, Melbourne is already Australia's largest city, but, on most reasonable projections, it will certainly be Australia's largest city. If you go to forums that talk about the future of Melbourne, you will hear this sentence: 'By 2050, Melbourne will be the size of London.' Now, for Melbourne to get to the size of London and still be a place that is livable, that has enough housing, that has the infrastructure needed, that has enough quality schools, hospitals—and we have good hospitals, but would they still be able to manage a population that size?—and transport, and that preserves green space and stays within that proud ranking of being one of the world's most livable cities, is a significant challenge that requires the due attention of state and federal governments and, indeed, local councils.</para>
<para>But where are we at, now, in Melbourne? We heard evidence in this building from Aldi, the supermarket chain, that said that, when they have to build a store, there is a 30 per cent premium for building that in Victoria compared to the rest of the country. Where does that 30 per cent premium come from—to have construction cost so much in Victoria? What does that mean for our ability to meet all of the challenges that will be required, to have the infrastructure for a population the size of London in 2050?</para>
<para>A lot of people in this place are scared of having discussions and debates about what Australia will look like in 2050, including as to energy. We're having that debate now. This particular bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024, is about that too. If we are to have, in Australia's largest city, a permanent premium of 30 per cent on building—and that can only grow—we have to ask, first: why?</para>
<para>I refer to an article in the <inline font-style="italic">Saturday Paper</inline>. These two paragraphs stood out to me. They talk about a meeting that happened in Festival Hall. For those from Melbourne, you know what Festival Hall is and where it is. The article says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When Festival Hall first opened, in 1913, it quickly became known as "The House of Stoush"—a boxing and wrestling venue and then, later, a home to roller derbies. This week, thousands of Setka's construction workers arrived in their high-vis and union-branded hoodies for the meeting. To Setka's … satisfaction, they reached capacity and spilled out the doors.</para></quote>
<para>In that meeting, we read:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The EBA was ratified by members, securing a 21 per cent pay rise staggered over the next five years …</para></quote>
<para>That included conditions: that the right to raise union flags would be mandatory, and that union officials could enter sites without permission if a builder invited them.</para>
<para>For those of you from Melbourne, if you drive through my electorate on the North East Link, you'll see that all of the cranes are branded, as if a student has tagged their tag on a building with some graffiti. It's not your construction site; it's not the people of Melbourne's; it's the CFMEU's. By using those mandatory flags, they are saying who owns this town. It's theirs; it's not yours. Never forget: this isn't about class; this isn't about lifting people up—those are the talking points. This is about raw power and the exercise of power—not for your interests, but for their interests. And that power has only ever been constrained when the federal government has stood up to it.</para>
<para>What we have seen from this government is that, when that power should have been stood up to, the opposite has happened—and, even then, the minister has had to acknowledge that, when we've seen, in broad daylight, the exercise of that power and the bullying tactics used. For that to be said out loud, in that circumstance, we know: conversations are being had in private. What are they? What intimidation has been happening throughout Victorian businesses in the construction sector? We ask ourselves why in the last financial year Victoria was the only state that saw an aggregate decline in small businesses. There were about 7,000 fewer when you aggregate those that opened and those that closed. There's always a churn, but there had never been that decline in numbers. Compare that to Queensland, where there was an aggregate increase of 11,000. A key part of that was movement south to north. But we can't rely on businesses just surviving or transferring to Queensland and hoping it's better when it's the construction sector, because, for Melbourne to be a liveable city that can accommodate that many people by 2050, we require an efficient, fair construction sector.</para>
<para>Let's go to the interview that prompted this discrete amendment. Stephen McBurney is the head of officiating for the AFL. He's umpired over 400 AFL games and four grand finals. So what is Mr Setka's issue with Mr McBurney? It's simple: it's a line on his CV that he objected to and he sought to wield bullying control over. Mr McBurney in a previous life was head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. What happened there? That was a commission that brought forward evidence of the CFMEU's bullying, thuggery and intimidation, and that wasn't just Mr McBurney coming to that view; he presented that evidence to the courts, and the courts found as much. They were found to have breached the Fair Work Act in 91 per cent of cases and they were fined millions of dollars for this.</para>
<para>What did Mr Setka say in response? I know we're not allowed to swear in this place, so I'm going use the euphemism of a 'fire truck'. I think we know what that means. He said: 'We have an obligation to pursue anti-union, antiworker fire truckers like him, and we will until the end of the earth. This is going to cost the AFL a lot of fire trucking money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without our full cooperation are going to be a fire trucking misery for them. They will regret the day they ever employed him.'</para>
<para>Think about that. Who speaks like that? Who speaks like that in public? You have to ask yourself: if that's what they say in public, if that's the language they use in 2024, what do they say in private when no-one is looking? What do they say when it's not the AFL? The AFL is no shrinking violet; it is a large institution with lots of money and supporters throughout this country, and he still chose to do that in that form. So what does he say to the small business or to the medium business? What happens behind closed doors? We know the answer to that. It's borne out in the flight of businesses out of Victoria, in the premium of costs to build large construction projects. The SRL on a 30-year timeline will cost $216 billion. That's the cost now. The North East Link, originally a $10 billion project, is now $26 billion.</para>
<para>What did the Prime Minister say when he was presented with this evidence? He said, 'Don't question me on it, because it will encourage him.' Can you imagine what the Prime Minister would do if a leader of any other institution had threatened another in that way? That is weak. It is impotent. Again, we have to ask why. We quite rightly hear a lot of talk about how there needs to be an increase in character and integrity in this place. That can take its form in institutions, but it's also in how we conduct ourselves, how we speak and the decisions that we make. There is no more important test of integrity than when your personal interests clash with what it is doing right. You had two doors and you choose which one you walk through. It is only when self-interest clashes with what it is doing right that you see the true measure of character. So the Prime Minister would have noted that in one of those doors was the risk of offending a person in a union that has donated $4.3 million dollars to his political party. In the other door was doing what was right.</para>
<para>It's not just standing up for the AFL; it is standing up for the mum-and-dad businesses and for the Victorians who want better-quality infrastructure delivered more quickly and cheaply. They're not getting that, and we certainly won't be the liveable city we're proud of—certainly not by 2050, when Melbourne's population will be the size of London's. The Prime Minister had a choice. He had a choice to choose principle over power, and he chose power. That's why we're left with this piecemeal amendment, which seeks to fix up a discrete problem.</para>
<para>That's not how we should do legislation in this place. It shouldn't be driven by the power, circumstances or particular factions that might have numbers that'll influence something. You should take a principled position. That demerger right should be there across the board. The Prime Minister had a choice between power and principle, and he chose power. We condemn him for it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This month the weak leadership of Prime Minister Albanese has been exposed by the belligerence of John Setka, the Victoria-Tasmania secretary of the CFMEU. After we on this side of the House moved our bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024, to allow the manufacturing division to demerge from the militant union, Labor have been embarrassed into acting. There is no clearer case, story or study of the weakness of the Prime Minister's leadership than their obedience to their union masters, and I will catalogue those impacts on my electorate of Mallee shortly.</para>
<para>At long last, despite opposing a proposal of this very same nature in February, the Albanese Labor government are now allowing the manufacturing division to demerge from the CFMEU. We have seen the belligerence of Mr Setka, with his threats to the AFL construction projects because of a grudge against Stephen McBurney, former commissioner of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, from 2018 to 2023. Mr McBurney is a former AFL umpire with over 400 games experience up to 2011, including four AFL grand finals in the 2000s. In April this year, the AFL appointed Mr McBurney as head of the AFL's umpiring department, drawing Mr Setka's fire and ire. I note that Mr McBurney was responsible for bringing evidence before the courts of the CFMEU's bullying, thuggery and intimidation, and the CFMEU were found to have breached the Fair Work Act in 91 per cent of cases.</para>
<para>What did Mr Setka say about Mr McBurney? I'll be bleeping where I can't say the word: "We have an obligation to pursue anti-union, antiworker bleepers like him, and we will until the end of the earth. This is going to cost the AFL a lot of bleeping money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without our full cooperation are going to be a bleeping misery for them. They will regret the day they ever employed him.' Yet, when the press gallery asked the Prime Minister about Mr Setka's comments, he begged, 'Don't question me on it, because it will just encourage him.' That sounds like the pleading of a hostage, not the Prime Minister of Australia.</para>
<para>The coalition re-established the ABCC in 2016 after a double-dissolution election. Labor shut the ABCC down between December 2022 and February 2023, leaving our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses at the CFMEU's mercy. In tandem with the Registered Organisations Commission, the coalition had established watchdogs to prevent bullying, thuggery and intimidation from unions like the CFMEU on worksites, but Labor has abolished them both. The coalition gave teeth to the watchdogs, but Labor are lapdogs to militant unions like the CFMEU.</para>
<para>The demerger we are debating today is the one that the manufacturing division sought in January 2023, but the move was rejected by the Fair Work Commission. Division secretary Michael O'Connor told Nine media that the manufacturing division had 'been the victims of a whole range of attacks by the construction division' and there had been 'no attempt to resolve continuous attacks and sniping by construction'. At that time, I note the mining division had also applied to the FWC to break away from the CFMMEU. Little wonder that the manufacturing division have requested a secret ballot on the demerger question.</para>
<para>Let's not forget the CFMEU's track record towards women, of which there is a higher proportion in the manufacturing division. The coalition's efforts to allow them to demerge have been to give women a voice, to let them stand up to the thuggish bullying and misogynistic culture of the CFMEU. One of the union representatives described the workplace culture of the CFMEU offices:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building.</para></quote>
<para>In 2014 a female ABCC inspector reported visiting the Barangaroo casino hotel construction in Sydney was surrounded by 40 CFMEU members, who used a loudhailer to call her words I can't put on record—but a disgusting slur, with profanity, against a woman. There are plenty more examples.</para>
<para>In 2020 the coalition in government legislated to allow parts of amalgamated unions to demerge if they felt it was in their best interest. This was to ensure unions were fairer representatives of their members. However, during the union controlled Labor 2021 Special Platform Conference, they committed to 'union demerger reform reversing the Morrison governments legislative changes that make it easier for unions to demerge'. Despite the CFMEU's history of bullying, thuggery and misogyny, Labor removed the right to demerger and persistently failed to stand up to Mr Setka. That was until, and only until, a footy code was threatened. Then, after some handwringing and goodness knows what else behind closed doors, the minister announced a demerger would be allowed, saying, 'That attack on the AFL really made the decision clear and made the timing immediate.' This is nothing but pathetic.</para>
<para>Labor has known for a long time about the CFMEU's appalling track record of economic disruption. Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta described the CFMEU as 'the most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history'. Federal Court Justice Jessup said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The CFMEU's record of non-compliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious … That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement.</para></quote>
<para>Federal Court Judge Jarrett said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The CFMEU has as egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.</para></quote>
<para>Federal Justice Flick said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The CFMEU has long demonstrated by its conduct that it pays but little regard to compliance with the law and indeed has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law.</para></quote>
<para>Federal Circuit Court Judge Vasta said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It seems that the CFMEU feel that they can usurp Parliament and that they can set the law in this country. There is no place for such an attitude in Australian society.</para></quote>
<para>Let me give a few Victorian examples of what the CFMEU have done to stymie construction work in our state. In 2017 the CFMEU and 10 of its officials were fined a total of $590,800 for unlawful industrial action at nine construction sites across Victoria. The sites include four hospitals and an aged-care centre. In 2017 the CFMEU was ordered to pay $100,000 in penalties for unlawfully blockading a major Port of Melbourne expansion project and threatening to bring 20,000 workers to join the fight. In 2014 and 2015 the CFMEU was forced to pay a variety of fines and compensation payments in relation to its unlawful blockading of the Melbourne CBD Emporium site, including $3.55 million in damages, $1.25 million for breach of court orders and another $115,000 in penalties for organising the unlawful industrial action.</para>
<para>Another example of the CFMEU's economic impact is one I've had constituents raise with me, and we hear it all over the country—road traffic controllers being paid over $200,000 per annum for holding a 'stop/slow' sign at roadworks. That arrangement was secured through Setka's Victorian branch of the CFMEU. Little wonder that construction costs are going up so much, and that goes to the point of the economic impact of the CFMEU's behaviour. The only financial impact Labor care about is the $4.3 million the CFMEU gave them before the last election.</para>
<para>The weakness of this union-controlled Labor government hits home for my electorate of Mallee when it comes to policies rolled out in regional Australia without a care or concern for—or, it seems, awareness of—the reality of working on the land. The prominent recent 'same job, same pay' industrial relations changes—rebranded with spin as the 'closing loopholes' bill—saw National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke respond in September that farmers are now left to grapple with how they engage employees through labour hire during harvest, the busiest time of the year. In December it was Merry Christmas to union bosses and thanks for all your support, but to Australian businesses it was a lump of coal under the tree.</para>
<para>Union-controlled Labor are bulldozing the industrial relations landscape, where all you can see is the barren land of a union-controlled employment monoculture. Employment diversity and flexibility are gone. Labor's IR agenda, at the unions' behest, reversed decades of history, where Australia had moved away from centralised wage fixing towards pay and conditions that were based on productivity and reward for effort. Who would think it? Labor has reinstated the age of entitlement, and the most entitled of all of are the CFMEU, thanks to their donations to Labor.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Mallee, our farmers and small-business owners are the casualties. One farmer in my electorate said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The obstacles that could be put in the way of small family farms and businesses by this legislation are nothing short of catastrophic and naive, written by those who have no experience of how small communities are the backbone of the Australian way of life.</para></quote>
<para>In Labor's two years in government, Labor have taken away piece rates in horticulture, which paid reward for effort on the basis of how much fruit was picked, and forced farmers to pay workers an hourly wage—same job, same pay; the lifter and the slacker paid the same, with no incentive for productivity or efficiency. Union-controlled Labor binned the ag visa the Nationals fought for and established when in government. Union-controlled Labor imposed a higher salary for migrants on the temporary skilled migration income threshold, or TSMIT, lifting it from $53,900 minimum salary to $70,000. Union-controlled Labor imposed a 30-hour week pay requirement for workers brought into the country on the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme.</para>
<para>Labor's lapdog action for the unions is rolled out on country people like Mallee voters as their primary experiments. It's all part of Labor's scorched-earth approach to regional Australia, which is, I repeat, by design: experiment on the farmers and, if they get away with it, roll it out on all small businesses. Union-controlled Labor want to come into the family farming home as well, rolling out the red carpet for the likes of the CFMEU right into the kitchens of family homes on farms. Labor have given unions the right to enter farms unannounced, intruding on people's privacy and threatening the personal safety of farmers and their families.</para>
<para>In the May budget, Labor removed funding for the successful coalition-initiated Harvest Trail program. This exposes the lip-service Labor pays to the topic of exploitation. Labor axed funding and the jobs of those providing a service that prevented the potential exploitation of harvest workers—for instance, on working holiday visas. This funding decision was made despite a resurgence of backpacker labourers since the pandemic—more, in fact, than before the pandemic. The Nationals have worked very hard to help secure the workers needed in horticulture, which dominates my electorate of Mallee, but union-controlled Labor couldn't bulldoze our employment landscape fast enough. They don't care about the impact on the farmers and yet again are exposed for not caring one bit about the cost of living. While farmers are price takers, in some instances the food shortages produced by Labor's policy will be felt at supermarket check-outs in higher fruit and vegetable prices. Union-controlled Labor's belated action with this bill demonstrates that, yet again, we have a weak Prime Minister and a government distracted by its pet projects and pleasing their union masters, with no concern about the cost of living and the cost of doing business.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am delighted to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024, because with this bill we are cleaning up the mess that the Labor Party has created. Labor had perfectly good laws in place left to them by the coalition, which allowed for unions to demerge when honest unions didn't want to be associated with the criminal gangs and thugs of aspects of the CFMEU. At the behest of their union paymasters, the CFMEU, which gave them $4.3 million—that's a figure you'll hear me say many times in this speech—impressed upon Labor the need to remove the demerger provisions.</para>
<para>Now Labor have done a massive backflip, seen the error of their ways and understood that honest workers and honest union officials shouldn't have to hang out with people who have a rap sheet longer than my arm and people who treat orders of court with contempt—CFMEU officials famously wallpaper their toilets with contempt of court notices—but that's what they have been forced to do until we restore these demerger provisions that allow unions to make a choice about which unions they want to be part of.</para>
<para>I think the conduct of aspects of the CFMEU in relation to unions dominated by women has been a disgrace. I particularly think that, in the context of the textiles division of the CFMEU—a part of the economy that is dominated by female workers—the threats and intimidation that have been placed upon union officials in the textiles division, particularly women, is a disgrace. We should not accept in any form harassment of women in the workplace, yet that has been allowed to go unchecked and those officials will have to remain part of the CFMEU until these laws restore the coalition's perspective, the coalition's position, which allows honest unions to demerge from unions which are crooked.</para>
<para>In the textiles division of the CFMEU, one of the union secretaries told <inline font-style="italic">The Age</inline> newspaper about her first meeting with the CFMEU. She says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It was a male-dominated space. He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse.</para></quote>
<para>One of the union reps stated with regard to the workplace culture of the CFMEU offices:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building.</para></quote>
<para>That's the culture of the CFMEU—a culture that people should not put up with for one day in any workplace, yet the organisation in our community that is actually supposed to stand up for workers was creating a workplace that was littered with harassment. That's why it's really important that, if the textiles division wants to demerge from the CFMEU, they are able to do so. We provided for that avenue in 2020 when we made amendments to the legislation to allow for union demergers. But Labor, because they are in thrall to the union movement, decided to reverse that. This bill is about restoring the position put in place by the coalition.</para>
<para>At the dark heart of the CFMEU, an organisation which founded and funds the Labor Party, is John Setka—one of the most violent and contemptuous union officials this country has ever known. In late August 2019, Setka's estranged wife provided a sworn statement to police detailing a serious incident where Mr Setka had physically assaulted her. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">John was out of control. He hit my head against the table about five times. It was very painful. John is a lot bigger and stronger than me and he can totally physically control me. When he loses his temper, there isn't anything I can do but submit to him.</para></quote>
<para>When are the CFMEU going to clean up their act and get rid of this man? He shouldn't be representing any worker. The standard you walk by is the standard you accept, and for the CFMEU to have a man like this engaged in leading their union is a terrible thing. For the Australian Labor Party to accept $4.3 million dollars in donations from an organisation led by this man is an extraordinary thing in the context of our country. That somebody has engaged in these terrible threats, not just to women in his workplace but to his own estranged wife, is something that we in this country shouldn't put up with.</para>
<para>Mr Setka and the CFMEU have it in for umpires. They don't like umpires of any sort. They didn't like the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which was the umpire in their industry. They particularly did not like Mr McBurney, who was the head official at the AFL. That's why this has come to a head. It's not come to a head because of Mr Setka's conduct and the conduct of CFMEU officials in their own building, creating a threatening workplace for women in the textiles division of the CFMEU. It's come to a head because of the threats that Mr Setka has made in relation to the AFL. The head of officiating—the head umpire, effectively—is someone who once worked, effectively, as the umpire in the building industry. And because Mr Setka never likes to be held to account, because the CFMEU don't like the idea that they will be held to account by someone, they engage in threatening and intimidatory conduct. That's why the government's hand has been forced here.</para>
<para>I think it's worthwhile listening to some of Mr Setka's own words in relation to Stephen McBurney—a man who has discharged his duties as an umpire and official in the AFL in an exemplary fashion for hundreds and hundreds of games, just as he discharged his duties as an official of the ABCC in an exemplary manner too. And yet, Mr Setka has complete contempt for a fine Australian in Stephen McBurney. Mr Setka is fond of using the Anglo-Saxon. The Anglo-Saxon is a word that is probably unparliamentary, so I'm going to take a page out of the book of my friend, the Manager of the Opposition Business, and, where Mr Setka would use the Anglo-Saxon, I'm going to use the words 'flip' and 'flipping'. He said: 'I think it'll have implications for the AFL right across Australia. We have an obligation to pursue anti-union, anti-worker flippers like him and we will until the end of the earth. This is going to cost the AFL a lot of flipping money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without our full cooperation are going to be a flipping misery for them.' These are the threatening words of John Setka, because the AFL has, as their head of the officiating, someone who once tried to hold him to account, and successfully held him and his union to account, on building sites.</para>
<para>Mr Setka says of the AFL: 'They will regret the day they ever employed him … We will use every resource we have to pursue him … They don't just walk away from a role like that, cost the union millions of dollars and just think they can walk into the flipping sunset. It doesn't work that way … This is the real world. We go after our enemies, and he was our number one enemy, and we will pursue him until the ends of the earth.' Mr Setka doesn't sound like a person who's there to argue for the rights of workers; he sounds like a terrorist. This is an extraordinary mindset for somebody leading a union that controls the preselection of Labor Party members and donates $4.3 million to the Labor Party. This is just extraordinary.</para>
<para>Mr Setka goes on to say of Mr McBurney and his role in the AFL, and of what will happen if the AFL keeps Mr Burney:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If it's work to rule, and we just work our basic hours, things are going to drag out forever—</para></quote>
<para>and projects will mostly run over budget—</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are not going to stop a whole stadium, but for projects of this nature to get delivered, they have to have the full cooperation on site, and that means a lot of flexibility, a lot of give and take.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We get our blokes to work RDOs, sometimes on long weekends. We have a meeting and say, "Look, the job's behind, they need to deliver this on time."</para></quote>
<para>And, 'Let me tell you, god help them if their schedule is ever out of flipping whack, because we will not be bending over backwards to do a flipping thing to help them. It's going to be a hard slog for them.' Mr Setka has said that the union has an obligation to pursue former ABCC officers and wreck their careers, wherever they are. It's just extraordinary that a person who's supposed to be there to create safe working environments is actually pursuing other workers in a way that makes their own work environment unsafe.</para>
<para>It seems unprecedented, except that it's not. We know that this conduct has been going on for generations in the CFMEU. And it's not just Mr Setka; I don't want you to think that he's an isolated example in the CFMEU context. There are other CFMEU officials who have also held Mr McBurney in contempt because Mr McBurney was trying to do his job. He did his job lawfully at the ABCC, and now he's trying to do his job lawfully as the head of officiating at the AFL. Take Mr Zachary Smith, the CFMEU's national secretary. He said of Mr McBurney:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… as the head of the disgraced ABCC, Stephen McBurney brought untold misery to the lives of workers he unfairly demonised and the branch is very rightly expressing the genuine anger of its members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The national union is yet to discuss potential action against the AFL, but there's zero doubt the pain the ABCC caused under McBurney is still being deeply felt by construction workers across Australia.</para></quote>
<para>There was no pain for construction workers. There was only pain for union officials and only pain for union officials who were engaged in standover tactics and who were creating intimidatory workplaces in the construction sector. That's why the CFMEU hates them. That's why CFMEU has pursued a vendetta against people who once worked for the ABCC. That's why the CFMEU is engaged in the work of trying to discredit Mr McBurney—a very distinguished umpire, a very distinguished public servant—and make his life, and the life of the AFL, who have employed him, hell.</para>
<para>But this goes further than the CFMEU. Let me also quote from the Victorian Trades Hall Council Secretary, Luke Hilakari. He said that 'people's reputations follow them' and went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">AFL is a working-class sport and his—</para></quote>
<para>Mr McBurney's—</para>
<quote><para class="block">track record of blowing the whistle on the unions puts him at odds with many fans.</para></quote>
<para>I think Mr McBurney's record as an umpire—fair decisions in the workplace; fair decisions on the playing field—puts him on side with many fans. That's what we need more of in this country—people who will stand against lawlessness—because we are seeing lawlessness in too many parts of our country.</para>
<para>I think the role that the CFMEU plays in the Labor Party, founding the Labor Party and funding the Labor Party, helps explain why we are seeing lawlessness across our country and the Labor Party refusing to take action on so many fronts. Fundamentally, those in the CFMEU conduct themselves in a lawless manner, and they want to get away with it, and they have a political party in this place that bends over backwards to change laws to make it easier for the CFMEU to engage in lawlessness. When we ask ourselves the questions: 'Why are we seeing a growth in lawlessness across the entire Australian community at the moment? And why is this federal government, under Anthony Albanese, failing to take action?' it is because the very way the Labor Party is set up, the very purpose of the Labor Party, is to help people engage in lawless activities like that activity engaged in by the CFMEU.</para>
<para>When we look at Australia today, we are seeing lawlessness in every level, whether it's the return of the unions flexing their muscle on buildings sites because of the abolition of the ABCC; whether it is people smugglers thumbing their noses at our border protection policies and this Labor government allowing hardened criminals, rapists and murderers, to run around the country unsupervised and continue to commit crimes; whether it is the growth of knife crimes in my city, knife crimes in Western Sydney and knife crimes in Bondi; whether it is the growth in graffiti; whether it is the terrible inaction of this government to stop antisemitism on campus; or whether it is the unabated growth in domestic violence that we have seen, this temperature of and growth in lawlessness are created by a government that refuses to stand for law-abiding citizens. That's why it is so important that we, on this side of the House, hold the government to account, because, if the government had its way, it would continue to promote lawlessness.</para>
<para>It's the reason we are here today. The government wanted to have a situation where the poor workers in the textiles division of the CFMEU—women who were going about their job of representing other women at the workplace, and were doing so in an honest fashion—were not able to leave the CFMEU. The CFMEU is an organisation packed with people like Mr Setka—a man fond of using the Anglo-Saxon; a man who has a rap sheet longer than my arm; a man who treats Federal Court orders with contempt. They wanted to force the poor officials and workers at the textiles division to stay with these people.</para>
<para>When a marriage is not working, we say: people should have the right to bust up; people should have the right to go their separate ways. That's why, in 2020, it was a coalition government that enacted laws to allow demergers to happen in the union movement. That's why, in 2020, in the face of union opposition, we demonstrated leadership. We demonstrated that we wanted to stand with the law-abiding instead of standing with corrupt union officials.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:29 to 11:48</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact that Liberal member after Liberal member is coming in here on an industrial relations matter and saying what a great bill this is and why they're going to support it, ought to give the government pause for thought about what it's doing.</para>
<para>When they were in power the Liberals were ferociously anti-union. They established and maintained the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which was effectively an industrial police force for one industry only, which meant that if you happened to work in the construction industry you had fewer rights than workers in other industries. You lost your right to silence, you could be hauled into secret interviews and forced to name names and answer questions. There were massive penalties imposed on people, simply because of the industry that they worked in. And it was clearly designed to do the bidding of the Liberals and the bidding of the big corporations to attack workers' rights. It also undermined the rule of law. There should be a general principle in this country that says that the law applies across the board equally, everyone's entitled to the same protections and, if you break the law, then there's a system for dealing with it, which is that you get a presumption of innocence, you get taken into the courts and the judge decides whether or not you've broken the law. This idea to start having really draconian provisions, where you take away people's basic rights just because of the industry that they work in, is incredibly destructive—not just for the rights of the people who work in the construction industry but for the rule of law in general.</para>
<para>The Liberals also had a huge range of legislation. One of the biggest pieces of legislation ever written, from a party that supposedly believed in deregulation, was the Work Choices legislation, where they were quite happy to sit down at the table and tie the hands of workers as they tried to negotiate. This party of so-called non-market interferers was very happy to say: 'You can't have these provisions in your agreement, even if you can negotiate them. You can't have provisions that protect apprentices. You can't have provisions that are designed to give workers a seat at the table and the ability to have a say in decisions that the company is making that affect them.'</para>
<para>The Liberals were very happy to get in and regulate down to the most micro aspect about what happened in particular workplaces and to take away the rights of workers across the board, including construction workers. They also had provisions in their laws that were aimed at weakening unions. We've seen huge numbers of those laws that were around weakening unions' rights regarding right of entry and right to strike. But they also had provisions in there that were clearly coming from a Liberal government that said: 'We don't like strong unions, so we're going to have provisions in the laws that are designed to say that we want to encourage the weakening of unions and the breaking apart of strong unions.' That was the Liberal way.</para>
<para>We now have a bill that seeks to reinstate some of those provisions, and it's why Liberal member after Liberal member is lining up to say, 'What a great idea.' I want the government to seriously think about this and the path that they're embarking on. Once you do this for one union, people are going to say: 'Well, what about me? Shouldn't this apply across the board?' It becomes increasingly difficult to justify the laws that you've got in place when you start saying you're going to make exceptions for one, and then you somehow expect that, when the Liberals line up and say, 'Great; you're reintroducing part of our laws for this,' they're not going to keep coming back and asking for more and more. You've just given them a justification for it. You've just said, 'We want to turn the clock back and have Liberal-era laws in place, and we're going to target one particular union.' But, as the national secretary of the CFMEU, Zach Smith, pointed out: 'This bill risks setting a dangerous precedent for anti-worker ideologues in future coalition governments to break up unions.'</para>
<para>So I really want the government to think seriously about what it is they're doing here. I know a lot has been said during the course of debate about the actions of particular individuals. Again, I come back to the point—and maybe this is an old-fashioned view—that the rule of law applies because there's a law that applies and, if you break the law, there's a process for dealing with it. But, if what you're going to do is actually come in here and legislate specifically for one union, I say to Labor again: you have just opened the door. Again, ask yourself: why is it that Liberal speaker after Liberal speaker is coming in here and saying what a terrific idea this is?</para>
<para>The Greens have a straightforward principle position, which is why we opposed the ABCC—and we're very pleased that the government delivered on a commitment to abolish the ABCC. That was a really good move from Labor because, as I said before, that was effectively a secret industrial police force for one area only. It meant that, if you happened to work in that area, you had fewer rights than your colleagues, including things like the right to silence. That was a good move.</para>
<para>It is a bit shocking to see them now saying, 'Actually, we want to reinstate some of it,' because generally, as I said, what we should have is a system of laws that applies across the board. If you break those laws, the system should be holding you to account. Also, when it comes to unions and their fate, they should comply with the laws that exist and are in place at the time. If there is a case to make for changing those laws generally, then come in and make it, but it is a really worrying precedent in terms of what this government is doing. I urge the government to rethink this question and ask themselves why it is you don't see Labor members standing up here and speaking on this. You only see coalition members. If you're bringing in legislation that the coalition thinks is a terrific idea, are you doing the right thing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 puts back into law policy and legislation of the former coalition government. It was good law back then and it remains good law today, as we have seen with the Labor Party backflip. It is a union demerger law. Unions have had a very important role in the history of Australia. It is important that honest and good workers should be able to join and remain in honest and good unions. If the union that they have joined proves to be dishonest, bad or dangerous for them, then workers should be able to move out of that union. Similarly, as we are seeing with this legislation, this relates to a division of the CFMEU being able to move out of the existing CFMEU, which in my view has always been toxic but has become even more toxic in the last few years, particularly under the stewardship of John Setka, and I will come to that in a moment.</para>
<para>By way of background, in 2020 the coalition government brought in legislation that said unions could demerge from larger unions. With his workplace relations agenda, one of the first things Minister Burke did when this government was elected was repeal the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That was a body that had been set up by the former government to specifically help and protect workers on building and construction sites. It was investigating workplace breaches in that industry, and it was very successful. The Labor Party came in and said, 'Oh, no, we need to remove that,' because the CFMEU, which had been sued successfully in 91 per cent of cases by the ABCC, told the Labor Party, in return for the $4.3 million it donated to the Labor Party's last election campaign, 'Quick, Minister Burke, you must get rid of this legislation.' So the minister did. Then, last year, the minister also repealed the union demerger laws that were brought in under the coalition. And today he is bringing back those coalition laws. Why? Because it was good workplace relations law. But it is a significant backflip, and it has been a backflip that the government has only been brought to by yet more egregious actions by John Setka.</para>
<para>This legislation has been brought in to allow the manufacturing division of the CFMEU to effectively demerge from the CFMEU. That division is made up of many textile workers, largely females, who have had to bear the brunt of the thuggery of the CFMEU and, particularly, John Setka. Union officials and union workers should not be forced to stay in a union that makes them uncomfortable. They should not be forced to be in a workplace that makes them uncomfortable, a workplace where we have seen specific examples of culture that is completely out of step with modern Australia and modern Australian workplaces. And John Setka's behaviour over the last few weeks has clearly demonstrated why the coalition government was right to legislate union demerger laws back in 2020 and why Labor was wrong to repeal them.</para>
<para>I think we need to look at all of the workers who make up those in the CFMEU. The CFMEU, of course, has many who work in the construction industry. These are our builders, electricians, plumbers, bricklayers, tilers, roofers, glaziers—our tradies. I have many of them in my electorate in southern and south-western Sydney. In the midst of a housing affordability crisis, when we all know that the main driver of the current crisis is the lack of supply of housing, the cost of construction within the construction industry has never been as high. Small businesses within this industry have particularly borne the brunt of this. Simultaneously we are seeing more and more of these construction companies going into liquidation, at record rates. This has happened in the past two years and it has happened for a number of reasons. There have been a lot of material supply issues, but it is also demonstrative of the lack of productivity that is occurring in many aspects of the construction industry.</para>
<para>This is at a time when we desperately need to build more houses and apartments. We need our construction industry to be thriving. We need it to be productive. And, for the many workers in this industry, we need it to be safe. We should be strengthening and supporting the construction sector, and one of the major handbrakes in the construction industry is the CFMEU. Statistics show that, on most sites controlled by the CFMEU, the productivity levels are around 2.8 days per week. Is it any wonder, therefore, that so many of our construction companies are going to the wall? No business can survive when its workforce is only productive for 2.58 days per week. So there is a direct link between the CFMEU and the lack of productivity in the construction industry and the number of construction companies that are going to the wall.</para>
<para>When we read the headlines about construction companies going into liquidation, we know that the workers within that company will have to look for a new job, but there is also the fact that the person who is building a home may then be left with half a home or three-quarters of a home. They are very badly impacted by the construction company going broke, and they have to go and find another construction company to finish their building work. This has a very big flow-on impact for the whole of Australian society.</para>
<para>I will turn to some of the other workers who are currently within the CFMEU. These are the workers that want to leave the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear sector, which has the greatest number of females, has faced significant issues within the CFMEU. We've heard from various inquiries that it is a toxic, male-dominated culture, with jokes about domestic violence and specific incidents of violence and harassment by John Setka, in particular. This has all contributed to make the CFMEU an unsafe place for these women to work.</para>
<para>Over the last few weeks, John Setka's most recent behaviour and that of the militant CFMEU have clearly shown why the coalition was right to legislate union demergers and why Labor was wrong to repeal them. It all goes back to the ABCC. Setka's history of lawlessness and his recent attacks on Stephen McBurney of the AFL clearly highlight these ongoing issues. Labor's response was weak, with the Minister for Sport unwilling to answer questions and the Prime Minister unwilling to answer questions. Was their reluctance to answer those questions at all influenced by the $4.3 million that the CFMEU provided to the Labor Party at the last election? If it was, this clearly shows that the ALP that espouses and promotes itself as the party of the worker has been sold out, because that is not the action of a party that is actually there for the worker. It is the action of a party that was desperate to win an election and would happily take $4.3 million of money from thugs and bullies.</para>
<para>What we've seen in most recent times is Setka's threats against McBurney and the AFL, and—as I said—the Labor government's unwillingness to condemn these actions. Minister Burke admitted that the government is only acting now because of the attack on the AFL. Minister Burke has known for years and decades about John Setka's behaviour. He's known for years and decades about the behaviour of the CFMEU. He has known about the bullying of women within that union and within those workplaces, yet he did not prioritise this until it looked as though the government—in Victoria, particularly—was being held over a barrel by this union. Labor's actions on all of this are driven by political pressure and financial influence. They're not driven by genuine concern for workers. If they were, the Labor Party would have acted on this a long, long time ago.</para>
<para>I'll turn briefly to the textile clothing and footwear sector. After the merger, which was forced upon them, they moved into the CFMEU's offices. These are some of the quotes that some of the workers within the textiles union have said. One of the union secretaries, for example, told the <inline font-style="italic">Age </inline>newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It was a male dominated space. He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse.</para></quote>
<para>One of the union reps also stated, with regard to the workplace culture of the CFMEU offices:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable, to the point where our division had to leave the building.</para></quote>
<para>Minister Burke was well aware of this. He didn't just become aware of this in the last few days. This has been a culture that has been there for a long period of time.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, when Senator Lambie in the other place brought in a private senator's bill that would have allowed the manufacturing division—which includes the textiles union—to demerge from the CFMEU, the government said that they would not be supporting her bill. The government has now largely rewritten Senator Lambie's legislation, and that is what is before us today.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I want to point to some of the comments that have been made by the courts about the CFMEU, because these are, of course, independent bodies. Some of the comments that have been made by some of our judges when they have been looking into the actions and conduct of the CFMEU include Justice Salvatore Vasta from the Federal Circuit Court:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history.</para></quote>
<para>Then we have Justice Jessup from the Federal Court:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The CFMEU's record of non-compliance with legislation has now become notorious … That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement.</para></quote>
<para>Then we have Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The CFMEU has an egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.</para></quote>
<para>This is a union that contributed $4.3 million to the Labor Party in the last election. This is what is being said by judges who have looked into specific conduct of the CFMEU. Their record speaks for itself.</para>
<para>The legislation that's before this place is legislation that simply puts back into law the very good law relating to union demergers that the coalition government brought in in 2020. It should never have been repealed. That much is evident.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 is a good piece of legislation, and I rise to support it. My question—I've got many questions—is: when are all the ALP people coming in to speak in support of this piece of legislation? I don't see any of them. The newly minted member for Cook—welcome to this place—must be shocked that the Labor Party aren't coming in here to support their own piece of legislation. It's strange.</para>
<para>I start by saying that the trade unions and trade unionism are important parts of our society. Trade unions have done good things over the course of the past 100 years in Australia—and even going back further than that in other parts of the world. The concept that workers come together and ensure that there are safe working conditions and decent pay is something that absolutely all of us agree with.</para>
<para>The trouble with the trade union movement in Australia is that it moved on from getting correct wage increases and those correct and important safety standards and went into the business of not working necessarily in Australia's interests but pushing too far in the antiproductivity space. That wasn't always the case. I've often said in this place that Australia had a very good Labor government in the 1980s. I've also said that that has turned out to be an aberration. The Hawke government—and I also want to give credit to the then leader of the ACTU, Bill Kelty—worked together in Australia's interests to try and move productivity forward. I congratulate that government for that collaboration in working for the common good—the opposition back in the eighties were supportive of this too—and that reform agenda. That modernising of the economy was important.</para>
<para>What we have now is an ALP that is timid in the face of union power. I congratulate them on this piece of legislation. I think it should go further. I think that there are many unions that would like to demerge. This one relates to the textile union. But the way the CFMEU behaves today, the way that their leader speaks and behaves and the general attitude towards Australian industry is a far cry from the ACTU of the 1980s.</para>
<para>As people know, I'm a first-termer. So I'm relatively new to this, but I come from a place where entrepreneurial spirit and private enterprise is valued. Export markets are important to that free enterprise and that entrepreneurial spirit in my electorate of Nicholls. What I think that many people in the trade union movement and many people in the ALP seem to forget is that the globe, the world, is a competitive space. Competition is all around us. We are a trading nation. We export things. We import things. People come here, and people leave us. If we aren't in the global competition game, we lose—and we lose big—because our businesses and our people's living standards go down. For us to be competitive, that means that everyone coming together in understanding that we neither competition. That means the union movement understanding, as they did in the early eighties, that Australia needs to be a competitive space.</para>
<para>In my electorate, obviously there is a lot of construction, but a lot of the construction and a lot of the activity is in agriculture and food manufacturing. We grow almost all of Australia's pears. We grow a large proportion of Australia's apples in the Goulburn Valley. There is a huge dairy industry, and those dairy products go into factories and get turned into infant formula, cheese and yoghurts that are exported overseas. The fruit that isn't sold as fresh fruit goes into a wonderful company called SPC. I've spoken about SPC and the peaches that they produce. I put it to everyone in this place that I'm running a tasting test for the SPC snack packs of peaches and the Chinese imports. It's a blind tasting, and overwhelmingly everyone is preferring the product produced in the Goulburn Valley.</para>
<para>But it costs a lot more to produce the product in the Goulburn Valley, and part of that is because we are not competitive with our overseas competitors, whether they're bringing fruit into this country or whether we're trying to compete overseas. Now, no-one wants us to go down the exploitation path. No-one in the Goulburn Valley wants to. But there needs to be a more level playing field between Australian farmers and manufacturers and their competitors overseas, and the union movement needs to understand that.</para>
<para>This union power has been the theme of the Albanese government, and I think this legislation has been brought forward grudgingly because of the publicity of some of the comments the leader of the CFMEU, John Setka, has made. It harks back to a time when that blokey, bullish culture meant that unions were not saying, 'Let's get Australia competitive and productive,' but: 'Let's try and push everyone around. Let's intimidate. Let's not work collaboratively for Australia's future. Let's try and look after ourselves and no-one else.' Never has that been more seen than in the comments that Setka has made about the AFL and the chief of umpiring.</para>
<para>I have often said I love sport. I love going to sport. I love training with my local footy and netball clubs. We tell our kids not to blame the umpire. We put an umpire in place; don't blame them. It's a given that, across sporting codes, the independent umpires, the referees and the officials are an essential part of the game. You might not agree with their decisions, but, without them, sport has no boundaries, no rules and no order. But I don't believe John Setka and the CFMEU respect the independent umpire. They didn't respect the independent umpire that the coalition put in place, which was the Australian Building and Construction Commission.</para>
<para>The union likes to demand that employers follow the rules, and they even threatened to impose work to rule to have their demands met, but they don't always like the rules applying to them. The former coalition government established the ABCC, which I think was the right thing to do. Some people disagreed with that, but the point is that they established the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In good faith they appointed a gentleman whose name was Stephen McBurney to lead that organisation. That legislation was democratically passed through this place and came into effect. Stephen McBurney, who had umpired over 400 AFL games, including four grand finals, was in good faith appointed leader of that organisation. He did what he was asked to do. He did his job. I think it was important work to try to get productivity back into the construction industry.</para>
<para>But now John Setka is trying to hound him out of any job he might have in the future. That's thuggish behaviour. We can't allow that to pass. That's not the way we should behave in Australia. Stephen McBurney, the respected umpire, did a job in good faith. He got asked by the government to serve his country by heading the ABCC. Now he has moved on to another job, and the union is threatening his new employer for employing him—only for doing his job. That harks back to the themes of antiproductivity and union thuggery, which I don't think should exist in Australia. Would Bill Kelty have done that? Absolutely not. Bill Kelty worked with the Hawke government for the benefit of Australia.</para>
<para>Now we're faced with a piece of legislation which I support but which I think should go further, and I would like to see more ALP members coming in here to support their own piece of legislation and explain to the union movement and explain to Australia why it's important, because that's what we do in this place—we bring our experiences and explain why things are important, otherwise you'd just passed legislation and have no debate. That sometimes happens here, with the guillotines that I've seen going on. But what this legislation seeks to do is say that a union that's incorporated into the CFMEU can demerge if it wishes, and that's the right thing. It's the right thing in this case, and I think we're going to move some amendments that say it should be the right thing to do in a number of other cases.</para>
<para>So this is important. I think this needs to be discussed and debated not only by us—the opposition, who are supporting it—but by the government, who are putting the legislation forward. I think that, if the government did that, they would have the opportunity to come in and say: 'We are the government for all Australians. We're not run by the union movement and we're not going to cower to the union movement, and productivity is an essential if Australia is going to regain its competitive status, which is slipping.' But they're not doing that—they're not coming in here to explain that. I think it's because they're timid. It's disappointing that they're timid, and I encourage them to come in to this place and say: 'If the union movement is on the same page about being a productive Australia, we'll work with them. If they're going to engage in thuggery, we'll be against them.'</para>
<para>I support the legislation. I encourage the government to look at our amendments, which would take it further, but I also encourage the government to come in to this place and speak to the union movement, discuss why you have put this legislation forward and be courageous against the union movement when it's out of line. As I said, I'm not against trade unionism; it's been very important for this country. But, when it gets out of control, then we lose our competitive advantage globally. That's what worries me as a new politician coming in to this place from an electorate where we make things—we still do make things. There's a made-in-Australia bill. Well, we still make things. Let's make those industries competitive.</para>
<para>As I said, I am supportive of the legislation. Make it go further, come in here, say to the union movement, 'We're going to push back against any of your thuggery,' and stick to your lane, ensuring worker safety and competitive wages—very important—but don't get into pushing people around and engaging in the sort of behaviour that Mr Setka has engaged in, in trying to make Australian industry uncompetitive.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a wonderful story told about the greatest man in Australian history, Red Ted Theodore. I did not say that; Malcolm Fraser said that. I did not say that; Paul Keating said that. He is easily the most important person in Australian history, and I would most certainly agree with that statement. When he went down a mine for the third time in his life, where people were going to die and refused to go down—they were told they would be sacked if they didn't go down, so they went down, and another two people died. Theodore himself carried the scars and pain for the rest of his life as a result of what happened in the mine that day. So they formed a union.</para>
<para>The story is told that Ted Theodore and Bill McCormack, his partner in crime, were in the pub, and there was a bloke called Tommy who hadn't taken out a union ticket. Ted said, 'Tommy, you haven't taken out a ticket.' With that, he proceeded to write out the ticket, whether Tommy agreed to it or not. Tommy said, 'You can take your ticket and stick it'—I think you know the rest of that phrase. There are women present, so we won't use the rest of that phrase. Theodore completely ignored him and kept writing out the ticket. McCormack grabbed Tommy by the hair, pulled him back from the bar and smacked him in the mouth. This actually happened. He went straight down, and then Bill kicked him all around the bar-room floor. Then he picked him up by the belt, held him up and said, 'Now, you will take a ticket.' Theodore said, 'Tommy, it would have saved us all a lot of trouble if you had just taken that ticket in the first place.' Tommy said, 'Well you didn't go to the trouble of explaining it to me properly like Bill did.'</para>
<para>That story speaks for itself. If you think that you're going to get union membership in 1900 by asking people and pointing out to them that they're working for nothing and dying down in the mines—one in 30 that went down the mines never came up again; one in 30 that were in the cane fields never came out alive. What, do you think we just keep copping that? If you think you're going to get people enlightened enough and scared of their bosses—if the boss finds out they're taking out a union ticket, they'll get sacked—it's not going to happen. The only way to do this was through violence. If there was some other way of doing it, you can read your history books and come back and explain to me how else it could have been done. Whether it is the same today or not, we will have to argue and disagree.</para>
<para>Setka is under attack. Setka is one of those blokes that doesn't apologise for understanding that a woman has lifted 737 kilos, while a man has lifted 2,422 kilos. There is a difference between men and women. I most certainly would not be prepared to put a woman in to do some of the jobs that I've had to do when I was labouring in the mines. There is a difference. In this place we are not allowed to acknowledge the differences; we've all got to be the same. Go and tell that to the law courts, because in 90 per cent of the cases they will decide that the kids go to the mother. Go and tell the law courts. Go and tell the hospitals. If you can't see that there is a serious difference here, then we have a serious problem in society today.</para>
<para>The much maligned CFMEU—not the Tories, not the Liberal Party, not the National Party; the CFMEU—assailed Jackie Trad. To me, Jackie Trad was the architect of the abortion legislation in Queensland. For those who are happy for 7,000, 8,000 or 9,000 little children to be murdered before they're born, you would think she is a hero. To me she is not, and she will meet her maker with the deaths of tens of thousands of little babies murdered before they were born on her conscience. She sold the railways. The head of the railways was on $365,000 a year. She and he decided to sell the railways. So she sacked 14,000 railway workers; two out of three. Did the Labor Party make a Bo Peep about it? No. Did the unions make a Bo Peep about it? No. The only ones that did anything about her sacking 12,000 Queenslanders were the CFMEU. We had her sacked.</para>
<para>She also sacked about 2½ thousand people in corporatising the electricity industry. Did the ETU do anything about it? No. Speaking as a person that worked with his hands for a fair few years, we have been represented by a group of people that are spineless, cowardly and brainless, but I am proud to say that the CFMEU does not fit into that category. If you think we are going to stand idly by and watch 12 or 15 or 20 deaths a year on construction sites, you've got another think coming, my mate.</para>
<para>The last speaker referred to productivity in fruit and vegetable processing and said that we're competing against the rest of the world. Who are you having a piece of here, mate? Even in the United States, the last time I looked, they were on $5 a day. Obviously people come across the border from Mexico—wetback labour, as they call it. But, all the same, the price was $5 a day. We are on $28.50 an hour. How are we going to compete against the United States, let alone other countries? I'm sorry; it's $5 an hour in the United States. In the Philippines, it's $5 a day. We're on $28.50 an hour, so don't come in here and tell me that we can compete in fruit and vegetables.</para>
<para>When Keating—and he praised the Labor government for this—said that he was removing all protection, I was so angry I threw a boot at the wall. It was six o'clock in the morning. I said, 'Now I'm going to have to spend half my bloody time looking after the workers.' I'd been looking after farmers and small business at that stage. Now I'd have to look after the workers because the ALP wasn't going to do it. If you go to no tariffs and no protection, then you are up against people in China that work for $10 or $20 a day. When you are up against the Philippines or Vietnam or India, where it's $5 a day, how the hell do you think we're going to survive in that environment?</para>
<para>He said, 'Oh, we've got exports.' No, we don't! This country does not export anything now except gas and coal and iron ore. We are not a mining country. Mining is when you dig it out of the ground and sell the metal. We dig it out of the ground and sell the ground. We're a quarrying country. When I say that there are only three things we export, those three are over $100 billion. The next one down might be gold, beef or aluminium. They're about $15 thousand million—$15 thousand million versus the big three at about $110 thousand million or $120 thousand million. So we only have three exports.</para>
<para>Who's responsible for that? Mr Keating is responsible for that. He removed the protection. We have our workers that deserve $28.50 an hour. Believe me, if you are out in the sun picking up a bunch of bananas that weighs 40 kilos and putting it on your back and then carting it 20 or 30 metres to where you put it on the trolley, surely you deserve adequate remuneration for that work. We're very proud in this country to say that we do pay adequate compensation, but none of us are going to have a job unless we combine that with protection. When he made that statement that all protection would be removed, we could either close down industry in Australia or go to slave labour wage levels. There's no in-between. So what we've done is close down industry in Australia.</para>
<para>The previous speaker referred to the fruit and vegetable industry. I'm pleased he raised that, because 45 per cent of our fruit and vegetables now come from overseas. Three years ago, most were coming—obviously, a lot of that depends upon the season. Obviously, mangos can only be produced here in Australia for four or five months of the year. I don't object to stuff coming in to supply the other four or five months of the year, obviously. There will always be some importation, but there is no future for fruit and vegetables in this country unless we have protection. In the banana industry, the so-called farmers party, the National Party—what a joke! It's incredible that Labor destroyed all the jobs in Queensland and that at a federal level it was the National Party, who claim to be the farmers party, that destroyed all of the farming in Australia.</para>
<para>But I'll get back to the heart of what we're discussing today, which is that a large part of the CFMEU, the manufacturing part, is leaving. The manufacturing part is dominated by women. In fact, every executive member that I've met from that part has been a woman. Of course, on the construction side, every person I've met has been a man, and that's fairly predictable, looking at what is required in both of those industries. There is logic in these people leaving, but, at every demonstration or rally I've been in as a very active member of the CFMEU, we chant 'Workers united cannot be defeated.' Well, we're a bit disunited here! But I can see the logic that is behind this. These ladies really don't want to be running around with hard knuckleheaded construction workers who are overwhelming, almost exclusively, male. So there is a lot of logic in what is taking place here, but I do urge all elements of the trade union movement to realise that workers united cannot be defeated, and if we are disunited we are very easily defeated.</para>
<para>For me, I'm sick and tired of a certain union that represents the employers, not the employees. I'm not here to attack that union, but I will say this. I was a member of that union, and we once had an extremely dangerous work situation with something we called the 'shaker'. I had to jump up on one side of the shaker, with a sledgehammer, and hit the shaker to get it moving, because it was stuck. There was a bloke on the other side, and so when I'd hit it I'd jump off, and then he'd hit it and he'd jump off, and then I'd be back hitting it. We were hitting it to get it to start moving, but we had two minutes before our boots caught on fire—only two minutes. I remember that each time you hopped up your boots got hotter and hotter. You had to move at the speed of light, because when the shaker started moving it was coming at you at 60 miles per hour—extremely dangerous.</para>
<para>But it was a simple thing to fix up. I went to the union reps, and they were all on acting staff. How dreadful—every single union rep was on acting staff, and I thought: 'They're not going to look after me; that's for certain. They're going to be looking after their future and their promotion.' So I went and saw the organiser of this union. He came down to the lead smelter, and we had glass at the top—same as we have here—and I saw my boss looking out through the glass at me, because he was pointing me out. He was pointing me out as a troublemaker! I was lucky not to get sacked, but did anything happened about the shaker? Of course nothing happening about the shaker. He wasn't there to protect the employee in the dangerous situation; no, he was there to protect the membership payments from Mount Isa Mines to the union. That was what he was there to protect. It's called site coverage. He was there to protect site coverage; he wasn't there to protect the workers on the site.</para>
<para>So I switched to the CFMEU, and I've been very proud of our reputation for standing up where there are dangerous conditions. We've stood up, and, yes, we got a bad name for doing it, because everyone expects us to work in extremely dangerous situations and expects 10 or 12 of us to get killed every year so you can justify some political stand you want to make.</para>
<para>I've also got to add that the previous speaker said, 'It's damaging our construction industry and our international competitiveness,' but one of the biggest target sites in Australia for high-rise construction is the Gold Coast of Queensland— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be speaking in support of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. Talking about payments to the ALP instead of the union may have been a Freudian slip by the member for Kennedy, because what we're seeing, and what we're seeing with this piece of legislation, is actually who is controlling the ALP—who is directing them and who has directed them on this issue. In 2020 the coalition passed this exact legislation. The member for Kennedy might call it 'payments to the ALP', but unfortunately they have to go via the unions before they go directly to the ALP. They would like them to go direct to the ALP—from the worker to the ALP—but unfortunately they're using the union as the middleman.</para>
<para>The CFMEU gave them $4.3 million this financial year, and what did it buy them? It bought them the opposition to this legislation in 2020 that allowed amalgamated unions to demerge if they felt it was in their best interests. This was to ensure that the representatives and their members were represented. But in February Labor didn't care about that. They reversed this. Why? Because these were the demands of John Setka and the CFMEU and because the ALP cares more about its union bosses than it does about their workers and their best interests.</para>
<para>What is today really about? Today is an admission from Minister Burke and it's an admission from the Albanese Labor government that they have failed. Today is recognition that the government has failed workers. They've failed the largely feminised industries that the member for Kennedy was talking about—the textile workers union—and they've failed the law-abiding unions. They've failed the good unions, and there are good unions in this country.</para>
<para>This legislation is being brought forward by Labor despite the Albanese government voting against very similar legislation in February. Why did this government vote against this legislation in February? What we've seen from the first two years of the Labor government is that they aren't about people power and they aren't about workers. They're about union power. 'Union power, union power, union power'—this is the chant we hear at every state Labor conference. We don't hear about workers, people, families or individuals. It's about institutionalised unions. This is the motto of the Labor government and its union masters.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Kennedy.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member is saying that the unions control the ALP. He's half correct. Just the opposite is true. What he's saying is incorrect. The opposite is true. It is the ALP that controls the unions, unfortunately and sadly.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, member for Kennedy! The member for Cook.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>All I'm saying is the unions gave $4.3 million dollars—thanks to the member for Kennedy for pointing this out—to the ALP in the last election. They've certainly gotten their money's worth. Let's look at it again. At the end of the day Labor have shown time and time again that they care more about union money than they do about stopping the bullying, thuggery and intimidation in the workplace.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Cook will pause. The member for Kennedy, on a point of order. Please state the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He said that I said that. I said just the opposite of that. I've been misrepresented.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You have to state the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I did. He said—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What is your point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is that he said that I said that the CFMEU was controlled by—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What is your point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry—that the ALP was controlled by the CFMEU.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's the content of your point of order, but what is your point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He said the exact opposite of what I said.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Kennedy, are you claiming to be misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a forum for that, and this is not it, so please resume your seat. The member for Cook has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KENNEDY</name>
    <name.id>267506</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can see why the member for Kennedy is getting confused, because it is very murky. This relationship between unions and the ALP is murky. The Australian people want it exposed. They want to see the transparency. As I was saying, the CFMEU gave $4.3 million to the Albanese government in the lead-up to the last election. What did it get? At the end of the day what it's gotten is the Labor Party's loyalty. They've shown time and time again that they care more about this union money than they do about the worker, than they do about the individual and than they do about stopping the bullying, thuggery and intimidation in the workplace that we are seeing from the CFMEU. This is a humiliating backdown from their previous anti-demerger stance. Minister Burke is now belatedly being forced to admit that they're only acting on this situation because of the attack on the AFL.</para>
<para>If we look at the CFMEU, they're also pushing employers to the wall. Construction businesses are going out of business with record insolvencies. You might ask, 'How can this happen in a housing shortage?' Well, at the behest of these union overlords, Labor has abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, leaving our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses—many of them in Cook, my electorate—at the complete mercy of the CFMEU. I'm going to talk about the CFMEU and its character in a little bit, but what's got even worse for these businesses going out is that I've just seen that the inflation rate is back up to four per cent. With that inflation rate going back up to four per cent and with the CFMEU being entitled by this Labor Party to run roughshod over these small and medium construction businesses, more are going to go to the wall.</para>
<para>What we're witnessing on full display from the CFMEU is that anyone who stands up to their lawlessness will be persecuted. That is being put on full display with their dogged pursuit of Stephen McBurney in the AFL, a pursuit which, thankfully, is now under investigation by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Why is Labor doing this attack on the AFL? Because it's an attack on the AFL—that's why they're dealing with this issue. It's not because of the difficulty faced by the women in the textiles division of the CFMEU, which has been crushed and is trying to withdraw from the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear sector has the greatest number of women of any division of the CFMEU. But here are some of the union official quotes that these women have had to put up with. This is what the union representatives themselves have said about the workplace culture:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building.</para></quote>
<para>Let's look further at the head of the union and his behaviour. In late 2019, Setka's estranged wife provided a sworn statement to police, detailing a serious incident where Mr Setka had physically assaulted her. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">John was out of control. He hit my head against the table about five times. It was very painful. John is a lot bigger and stronger than me and he can totally physically control me. When he loses his temper, there isn't anything I can do but submit to him.</para></quote>
<para>Look at this man.</para>
<para>In February this year, Senator Lambie brought a private senator's bill that would have allowed the manufacturing division, which includes the textile union, to demerge. But what happened when it was this government's turn to speak on this bill? Senator White got up and said, 'The government will not be supporting this bill.' Who knows what Mr Setka was doing behind the scenes to pull the strings to get this to happen? Over the last few weeks, John Setka and the militant CFMEU have shown Australians why the coalition was right to legislate these demerger laws in 2020. The Labor Party have finally been forced to admit their wrongs and bring this legislation back.</para>
<para>Mr Setka has a long history of lawlessness, and the courts have consistently upheld descriptions of him as a complete and utter thug. Despite the member for Kennedy mentioning him in a favourable light, this man is a thug. He's pled guilty in court to harassing women. Simply put, women do not feel safe around John Setka or his CFMEU, and they have good reason not to.</para>
<para>In the last few weeks, Mr Setka has displayed and has shown the attitude that anyone who gets in his way will be run over or have it attempted. Stephen McBurney, who is the head of officiating in the AFL, has umpired over 400 games and, by all descriptions, is a man of honour and repute. What is Mr Setka's issue with McBurney? McBurney was previously the head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. He was responsible for bringing evidence of the CFMEU's bullying, thuggery and intimidation before the courts, where they were found to have breached the Fair Work Act in 91 per cent of all cases. The CFMEU was fined millions of dollars for breaches of this, and for this Mr Setka is saying that the AFL must sack him. Specifically, Mr Setka has stated: 'We have an obligation to pursue antiunion, antiworker effers like him, and we will until the end of the earth. This is going to cost the AFL a lot of effing money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without our full cooperation are going to be an effing misery for them. They will regret the day they ever employed him.' This is the type of person Mr Setka is.</para>
<para>Let's look at Mr Setka's character in a little more detail. The <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> in June 2019, reporting on legal proceedings against Mr Setka, found that police analysis of Mr Setka's phones revealed that he called Anne Gooley:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 25 times and sent her 45 text messages, calling her a "weak f---en piece of …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">bleep—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… and a "treacherous … f---en c---" and a "f---en dog".</para></quote>
<para>This is the man leading this union. The Labor Party is gladly accepting $4.3 million a year from him and repealing legislation that's going to weaken the union. They're now only doing it because they're being bullied into it by what has been shown by the AFL.</para>
<para>Let's look at this man in another judgement. Justice Tracey describes the most disturbing incident, in which CFMEU Secretary John Setka and three thugs shoved a security firm manager, Mr Smith, into a Melbourne alleyway and proceeded to assault him both physically and verbally. The court's decision describes Setka's acts of violence: 'pinned him to the wall', 'hurled abuse at him', 'knocked his helmet from his head' and 'took turns to ram him into the wall'. This is the group donating $4.3 million to Labor. This is the group that Labor repealed our 2020 legislation for. When Mr Smith protested that he was being held against his will, Setka threatened that he would, 'Shut him up permanently.' These are the types of values that the Labor Party is accepting money for. I would request that the Labor Party stop taking donations from Mr Setka and his thuggish union with behaviour like this.</para>
<para>It doesn't stop there. In a separate incident, Setka abused a Grocon worker. He punched the windscreen of the van he was driving, told him to remember his face because he would come after him, and told him that he hoped he would die from cancer. The worker he was talking to was suffering from cancer at the time. Workers who actually wanted to get to work had to be bussed in, given a special path in with the protection of police fencing and given special duties to hide from the verbal assaults hurled at them by the union protesters, calling them scabs, dogs, rats and much worse—things I can't repeat today—and hurling threats including, 'You will die,' 'You're going to cop it,' and, 'I'm going to kill your family.' When police attempted to escort workers onto the site, union crowds blocked and punched their horses, egged on by John Setka, Sean Reardon and Craig Johnston.</para>
<para>Mr Albanese was confronted by a journalist about some of this thuggery. How did he respond when he was confronted by this? I quote: 'Don't question me on it, because it will encourage him.' What a weak and impotent response from the Prime Minister of Australia on a thug. This is a thug who, with his affiliates, donates $4.3 million a year.</para>
<para>In this humiliating backdown from their previous anti-demerger stance, Minister Burke has been forced to admit they're only acting on this situation because of the AFL. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… that attack on the AFL really made the decision clear and made the timing immediate.</para></quote>
<para>You would hope that, from some of the stories I've told today, from some of the quotes I've looked at or from some of the assaults these people have done, there would have been more then enough evidence in February earlier this year when Senator Lambie brought this forward, or, when we were looking at repealing the coalition's bills, to not repeal it. But, for Mr Burke, the attack on the AFL made the decision really clear and made be timing immediate. Wouldn't you think some of those stories, some of those incidents I'm calling out, would have made it more immediate than an attack on the AFL? What we're seeing here is a government that's more worried about the front pages of newspapers and the Channel 7 news than workers rights, actual thuggery or representing female workers in the textiles union.</para>
<para>But it gets better, because Mr Burke went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're not going to have a situation where we have members in the manufacturing division compelled to be part of an organisation that they don't want to be part of.</para></quote>
<para>Does Mr Burke not realise that the only reason the manufacturing division couldn't demerge from the militant CFMEU was that he and his government wouldn't let them? If what some of these women are being subjected to weren't such a sad topic, the irony would be delicious. We're taking the Australian people, the women of the textiles union and the rest of the parliament for fools. He's pulling a bill Shorten by going to the CFMEU and saying, 'Don't worry. We won't let the manufacturing division leave,' and then he turned around to the manufacturing division, saying, 'It's terrible and it's unacceptable that you're not allowed to leave.' This is two-way Tony Burke, playing at both sides.</para>
<para>Yes, I support this bill. I wish there were more members of the Labor Party in the chamber opposite standing up to support this bill to stand up to the thuggery. It's great that's taken an incident to illuminate it and I'm grateful to the AFL for illuminating it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I always supported the right for unions to demerge and I support this bill in allowing the manufacturers to be dissociated from the CFMEU. However, I'm unsure why this bill has to be so specific, instead of expanding the provision to allow demergers where members feel appropriate. Unions have an interest in remaining large, but as we've seen in the last few weeks, the size of the unions can actually have a perverse effect unrelated to the core responsibility of the union body. As such, when a significant share of a membership considers it no longer in their interest to be part of union membership—as the manufacturing arm of the CFMEU currently does—I believe they should be allowed to take steps to demerge.</para>
<para>Frankly, I support the coalition's previous legislation that allowed demergers of unions, and I stood against the government's repealing of this legislation. If they hadn't repealed this legislation we would not currently be in this situation where we have to pass this separate legislation. I'm not suggesting that we would see necessarily a lot of demerger activities but we do need to have broad demerger abilities in the union movement in Australia.</para>
<para>The issues that have been illuminated in this case underscore broader concerns that I have with the CFMEU in Australia. I'm genuinely concerned by the powers currently held by the CFMEU and am also concerned that it is an organisation that does not support the broader objectives of its members or the economy. The threats to the AFL, based on the hiring of Stephen McBurney, are absolutely unacceptable. There is no situation where that sort of thuggery and that sort of threat to something that is part of many, many Australian lives should be allowed to take place and that someone should have a leadership of such responsibility and feel so able to throw around power like that.</para>
<para>It comes to the issue—which I think is of great concern to me and many members of my community—of the housing crisis and the building crisis. We actually have a housing crisis, and that is a supply crisis and it is a building crisis, and I am deeply concerned that the last incident is just evidence of how the CFMEU is not working in the interest of the Australian economy and, frankly, Australians in general. Australia is in the midst of a housing crisis. This month we heard that Australia has three capital cities deemed to be impossibly unaffordable. In the past 20 years, house prices have increased by 193 per cent while wages have only grown by 81 per cent, meaning that young people are being locked out of housing.</para>
<para>The polity and certainly the experts agree that the best way to deal with unaffordability of housing in this country is to increase supply, but that is something we are desperately struggling to do and struggling because it is difficult. A significant part of that is about building costs. Given the issues that we have at different levels of government—and I acknowledge those—it is critical that we have confidence in the union movement in charge of delivering the homes of tomorrow because the actions and distractions of the last few weeks really cast that into serious doubt.</para>
<para>When I speak to developers, one of the biggest issues they have in getting housing supply movement going are the costs. Housing development costs have increased by 30 per cent since 2019 and I know construction businesses are doing it tough. ASIC data has shown increased insolvencies this year and they have been led by construction companies—the same companies that we are hoping desperately are going to build the buildings we need. While material costs are higher than pre-COVID, the labour costs are a significant part of this. I literally had someone come up to me the other day who works in the industry who said he is paying $250,000 a year for an engineering graduate with 10 years experience and paying $200,000 for a labourer with absolutely no experience on his sites. We've seen that in the Queensland government with some of the deals that they've done where, again, it's looking like the average wage on some of their sites is now 200 grand. I support every single person in Australia who works hard getting a great wage, but, unless we're getting incredible productivity gains from these extremely high pays, then we are not going to be able to build housing that is affordable for everyday Australians. I think this is an issue that the government absolutely need to face up to, as well as facing up to the issue that they have put a lot of money into public infrastructure, at all levels of government, which is actually crowding out the building of housing, which is what we absolutely need right now.</para>
<para>My expectation of the union movement is for them to work with government, to work with the construction companies and to be constructive around what every Australian needs, which is for us to be able to build the houses and the infrastructure that Australian people live in. I have severe doubts that the CFMEU, with the behaviour of its leadership, is able to play a constructive role in this space. This week shows that the organisation is even failing to serve its own members.</para>
<para>To wrap up: I would like to see the government allow unions to merge and demerge as appropriate. They should never have repealed the coalition's previous legislation, and I support the reintroduction of that legislation rather than dealing with this through ad hoc legislation. I support the call from a previous speaker for the government to no longer accept donations from the CFMEU when it continues to behave in a way that is so unacceptable to the broader Australian community. And I support the reinstatement of the Australian building and construction watchdog, because, frankly, we do need that sort of watchdog in the construction industry, particularly now, when the construction industry is critical to the future prospects and livelihoods of Australians who want desperately to have a home of their own.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 16:00</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There aren't a whole lot of bills that I relish coming in and speaking about in this place, but this is one of them. I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024.</para>
<para>I want you to imagine this scenario: a 19-year-old lad working on a commercial building site in Melbourne in around 1986 or 1987. That young lad was about 70 kilos dripping wet. It was the first day of his apprenticeship. Most people who've worked on building sites would know that the productivity of apprentices in their first year may not be so great, but this was day 1. I was that apprentice. It was my first day on the job of my partnership. I was working on a high-rise construction site in Melbourne. I was sweeping the floor, as any good first-year apprentice would do, and I had two big gorillas come up to me. One of them drove his finger into my chest and said: 'Slow down, Son. Slow down.' I was 19. As I said, I would have been 70 kilos dripping wet, and I was scared out of my wits. Some 35-odd years later I'm really proud to say that I'm glad those two gorillas did what they did, because I probably wouldn't be standing here but for that workplace of intimidation.</para>
<para>Of course, that wasn't executed by members of the CFMEU, because the CFMEU didn't exist back then. That was back in the days of Norm Gallagher's Builders Labourers Federation, back in the bad old days in the 1980s, when people's legs and arms were literally broken. I was absolutely scared out of my mind by these two guys. The fact that these two gentlemen—and I use that term extremely loosely—could (a) assault me as a kid and (b) tell me to slow down because I was sweeping the floor too quickly—give me a break! But that really kicked off my immense dislike for construction unions.</para>
<para>I am not anti-union. I think that the unions have done a lot of good in industrial workplaces in this country and throughout the world. What I am against is union thuggery and union bullying. It really upsets me when I hear members opposite talking about the importance of safe workplaces and not having an environment where people feel like they are threatened at work, yet the Labor Party continue to take $4½ million a year from the CFMEU for their election campaigns. That's what really upsets me.</para>
<para>I'm not anti-union. I'm absolutely not anti-union. In fact, believe it or not, I actually used to be a member of a union. I couldn't get my carpentry apprenticeship unless I joined the Builders Labourers Federation. Can you believe that? I couldn't get my apprenticeship. Back in the eighties there were signs up on every building site in cities across the country, and do you know what they said? They said 'no ticket, no start', which meant, if you weren't a card-carrying member of the BLF, you couldn't work on that site. And John Howard, to his credit, brought in rules of freedom of association. That event, back when I was a kid, irrevocably shaped who I am today. It angered me so much that I wanted to—people say, 'How did you start off in public life?' or, 'What made you go into politics?' There were lots of things, but that was one of them. I don't want to live in a country where gorillas, goons, can drive their fingers into people's chests, kids' chests, and threaten them because they're working too hard, they're pushing a broom too fast.</para>
<para>I'm really glad the member for Kennedy is in here, and it's a shame he wasn't in here earlier; he could have heard my earlier remarks about the CFMEU. But the Labor Party had an opportunity to accept a bill that we put in place back in 2020 to give certain unions the ability to demerge from other unions if they felt that they no longer shared the ethos of the unions that they were involved with. That bill was passed in 2020, when we were in government, and Labor reversed those laws in February of this year. Why? Because John Setka didn't like it. There was no other reason. It was that John Setka didn't like it.</para>
<para>The textile clothing and footwear sector, which has the greatest number of women members, faces significant issues within the CFMEU. With the toxic, male dominated culture that I've seen on building sites my entire life, it should not come as any great surprise that a union whose membership is heavily dominated by women wouldn't support the sort of rubbish that we have seen be perpetrated by the CFMEU. So they wanted to demerge and get out of the CFMEU. Everybody, it seems, wants to leave the CFMEU. Back in 2020—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's because they look after you, Bob. Back in 2020 it was the maritime workers who wanted to demerge from the CFMEU. The way the CFMEU are going, they're going to have to change their name to the 'C' because no-one wants to be a part of them! No other industry, no other union, wants to be a part of the CFMEU, because of the appalling conduct. Here's another miner—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here's one of them who don't want to be a part of the CFMEU, because of the appalling conduct of people like John Setka. But the Labor Party have now had an epiphany, just in the last couple of weeks. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be thinking, 'What is this epiphany?' The epiphany is that the member for Watson has finally come to his senses and realised that the coalition actually had it right back in 2020. Unions should have the ability to demerge from other unions if they feel it's in their best interests. But this come-to-Jesus moment, this road to Damascus, only happened after John Setka effectively tried to hold the country to ransom when he took on the AFL. The AFL seems to have more power and more sway than just about any other organisation in this country.</para>
<para>I want to declare a conflict of interest at this point. The member for Watson had this road-to-Damascus moment because John Setka came out and said publicly that he wanted to take on Stephen McBurney. He said things like: 'I think it will have implications for the AFL right across Australia. We have an obligation to pursue antiunion, antiworker expletives like him, and we will until the end of the earth.' And there are a whole range of things. He threatened the Australian government and the Australian taxpayers with, effectively, economic coercion and with stopping jobs, or certainly slowing them down, if the AFL didn't sack Stephen McBurney.</para>
<para>Where's my conflict of interest? I went to school with Stephen McBurney at St Bede's College in Mentone. We were in the same year. He's not a mate of mine. I don't dislike him, but he wasn't a friend of mine. But I went to school with him, and he has been a really faithful servant of the AFL. He acted as the AFL chief umpire, and now, after his term as the Australian Building and Construction Commission head, he's got his job back. Why has he got his job back? Because the Labor Party abolished the ABCC.</para>
<para>What we're seeing here today is the reason why we needed the ABCC in the first place: for people like John Setka and the thugs. Not everybody in the CFMEU are thugs, certainly, but the leadership of the CFMEU have proven time and time again to be. The Federal Court, time and time again, have said that this CFMEU is the most recidivist union organisation in Australia. It continues to cop fines imposed by the Federal Court, and the CFMEU treats those fines as the cost of doing business. It's just the cost of doing business. It wasn't until laws were passed that enabled the Federal Court to impose fines personally upon officials of the CFMEU that they actually started to sit up and take a little bit of notice.</para>
<para>Stephen McBurney, who is otherwise a good man, was doing his job as a public servant and running the Australian Building and Construction Commission, but, in doing so, he was effectively the policeman, effectively the police commissioner, and he brought prosecutions against the CFMEU. John Setka went after him and forbade the AFL from employing him. If the AFL didn't take the warning from the CFMEU, then all AFL job sites would just grind to a halt because this is what the CFMEU do. This is their modus operandi. 'If you don't join the union'—I know from my personal history—'we're going to black ban you. We're going to black ban you not just on this site but on every other site in this country until we bring you to your knees!' That is the way the CFMEU operate. And they try to use the same intimidation tactics they use on every single other building site in this country every day of this calendar year and in years past. That's what they tried to do with the AFL. And now the member for Watson has this epiphany. 'Oh, this is terrible. We should allow those smaller unions to de-merge.'</para>
<para>Shame on the member for Watson. Shame on every single member in this House who receives a benefit from the CFMEU in financial means to their campaigns or to the head campaign. Shame on them for taking that blood money, because blood money is exactly what it is. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I don't want to be difficult. I was speaking on this. I was informed that the debate was interrupted and I would be allowed to complete my speech, so I'm just getting up to complete my speech.</para>
<para>I said at the start of the speech that I was a member of another union, and we had a very dangerous situation at the Mount Isa Mines. I had to stand on a flue and swing a sledgehammer at a piece of machinery called a shaker. It was frozen, and we had to unfreeze it, so I had to hit it and jump off because the heat was such that my boots would catch on fire if I was there for any more than a minute or two. Once the shaker began to move, it would come at me at 60 kilometres an hour. On the other side of the flue was another bloke with a sledgehammer, so he'd hit it and then I'd jump up and hit it. We were hoping to get it moving. Anyway, it was extremely dangerous. I couldn't speak to any of the representatives of my union, because they were all staff. They hadn't quite been appointed, but they were temporarily on staff. You can't complain to a staff member about shortcomings of staff!</para>
<para>So I went down to see the organiser. As I said before, he turned up at my place of work. Like here, there was glass up there, and my boss was behind the glass. He was pointing me out to my boss—obviously, me as a troublemaker. Did he address the issue of the extremely dangerous shaker? No. I asked my boss in the control room, 'Did he take up your shaker?' 'No. Why would he do that? There's nothing wrong with the shaker.' 'Well, you go down and wield the sledgehammer, mate, if you think there's nothing wrong with it!' So I left that union, joined the CFMEU and remained a proud member of that union until this very day. You could say we're excessive at times. Yes. I wouldn't deny that for a moment. Put your hand up here, any member of parliament who is perfect in their conduct as a member of parliament. I'll track you down and I'll soon prove whether you're a good member of parliament or not. Yes, we've most certainly had our shortcomings. We're a very aggressive union and we make no apologies to anyone for that. Australia is averaging about a dozen deaths on construction sites each year. We're trying desperately to eliminate those deaths on construction sites. And, if we're a bit aggressive to people who will not take out a ticket—we do the work, and they bludge off us. I don't think that's very fair. We should do the work to get decent pay and conditions.</para>
<para>There is a union called the coalminers union. I'm really interested in the coalminers union, because it was led by a very good friend of mine, who put the biggest union in Australia together. At his valete speech, Bob Hawke and Neville Wran gave speeches. It was a very high-flying evening. He is a very great man, John Maitland. The head of the coal division, who was double-degreed from a university, stabbed him in the back and put him in jail, when he was totally innocent—and of course the appeals court found him totally innocent, and he was released. But, in the meantime, this fellow had taken over the miners union. As far as I'm concerned, he's never been near a mine in his life. He came out of university with two degrees, stabbed John Maitland in the back, took over the union and then took the coalminers out of the CFMEU because we didn't make him federal secretary. Well, I'd spit on him before I'd make him federal secretary of our union.</para>
<para>I came out of the Bjelke-Petersen government, the only government in Australia that stood up to union thuggery. I made no apologies to the ETU. You turned off the lights and you wouldn't switch them back on until you got the absolutely outrageous outcome that you wanted. So you switched the lights off. The only way we had to switch the lights back on was to bring in contractors. I pleaded with you. The Leader of the Liberal Party was an ex-ETU official who had become a doctor. He pleaded with them to go back to work. Johnny Maitland, the head of the coalminers union of Queensland, pleaded with them to go back to work, because they were playing into the hands of Bjelke-Petersen, who was just looking for an excuse to bash them up—and they gave him the excuse. I won't hesitate to say that our behaviour was excessive, as a government. I'm not proud to admit that, but the truth is that it was.</para>
<para>This issue has arisen because Setka has a different attitude towards women in the workplace. I'm not going to deny that for a moment. But a woman, in all of human history, has lifted 737 kilos. A man has lifted 2,422 kilos. It might come as a surprise to people in this place, but they're different, and Setka is one of those blokes who is conscious of the difference. If you want to go onto a construction site, you want to be able to swing by one hand 20 stories above the ground and not feel scared when you're doing it, and you want to be able to take weights that most people wouldn't be able to lift and do that 20 foot up on a steel beam. So please excuse me for saying some words in defence of Setka. This bloke was in the authority that was appointed to bash up and destroy our union, so please excuse me for saying that Setka might be a bit upset about that. And then he gets put in one of the most lucrative and most looked-up-to positions in this country, with the AFL. Well, please excuse me for complaining about it.</para>
<para>Let me go back to the coalminers union. We are now not in the CFMEU. We are in the coalminers union. Wages in Queensland have been driven down from $185,000 a year to $135,000 a year, for those of us who can get jobs—because we're supporting an ALP that wants the coal industry closed down. They've said it again and again and again. Well, I'll tell you something: it was the CFMEU that sacked Jackie Trad for screaming against the coalminers. It was the head of the CFMEU—not the coal division but the construction division. The coal division never said anything against her at all. She was just allowed to keep screaming that we wanted to close the coal industry down, and she was the deputy leader of the party in Queensland. Well, please excuse me for getting a little bit upset as a CFMEU member. At one time, we had the coalminers and we were going to fight for the coalminers. Since they left, our wages had gone down from $185,000 a year to $135,000 a year. So be it. You're going your own way? I wish you well, son. And the leadership of your coalminers union are a bunch of greenies.</para>
<para>Let me move on. The Liberals say, 'You get money from them.' Yes, in our first election we got money from them and from the ETU in Victoria. In the last nearly 20 years, we haven't got a cent off of them. Not only that, three of them handed out how-to-vote cards against me in my major booth in Mareeba. They had CFMEU shirts on. Alright, these people are entitled to their viewpoint, and the CFMEU actually works against our party, so I'll put that on record. If you think we're getting any money for what we're doing—no, it's what we believe is the right thing to do. So that's not why we're doing it. We're not getting any support from them whatsoever, to my knowledge.</para>
<para>The last speaker said, 'It is damaging us internationally—the tremendously high demands upon our industry.' Well, hold on, you're talking about the construction industry. Then he started talking about food processing, but the CFMEU has no coverage on food processing. You chose to pick the construction industry. The biggest and most important economic go-forward in Australia is construction on the Gold Coast, and you can go to any site, and the CFMEU flags are flying high. The most forward and aggressive economic go-forward in Australia is construction on the Gold Coast, and we're in charge of all those sites. So I'll say to the previous speaker: before you shoot your mouth off in this place, you better hope that the mob on the other side is stupid because someone might just hear what you're saying and answer it.</para>
<para>I didn't say that the CFMEU was in charge of construction on the Gold Coast. I didn't say that. The Liberal Party said that we're destroying industry in Australia. The only industry we've got going forward in this country is construction on the Gold Coast. I defy any member in this place to point out to me, apart from little, tiny things, anything that's going forward in this country. Everyone knows everything's going backwards; we're all aware of that. Unfortunately for him, he picked food processing. He said it's going forward wonderfully well, in spite of these people. Firstly, they've got nothing to do with the industry. The levels of fruit and vegetables imports are not going up; they're going down. Forty-five per cent of our fruit and vegetables now come from overseas. It's quite extraordinary for the most agriculturally well-suited country on earth that we get 45 per cent of our fruit and vegetables from overseas.</para>
<para>A few years ago, we were actually importing more fruit and vegetables than we were exporting. It goes backwards and forwards. I'm quite sure that, in the next few years, we'll be importing more fruit and vegetables than we export. Our country can't feed itself—that's a lovely state of affairs, isn't it? That's not the fault of the CFMEU. We are in construction. The one industry in Australia that is going like a house on fire is construction, and it's construction on a big scale where all the sites are CFMEU. So don't tell me we're restricting, because we're the only industry that's going forward. We're not restricting it. I can't say we're facilitating it, but we're most certainly the people doing the work on the site.</para>
<para>I'm very proud to say that our party has four members of parliament—and please, God, after selection we might have seven or eight to balance the power in Queensland. But every one of our members of parliament has dirt under his fingernails, and my honourable colleague on my left here has dirt under his fingernails. He's one of the last of the Mohicans! Who has in the Labor Party? They've never been near a job where they use their hands in their lives! But we've still got one left, and God bless him for being here.</para>
<para>When we have a candidate, we really want to have a look at him. We're very strong on Christian values. We believe—and you don't have to believe in the good Lord to be in our party, but we sure like to look at whether you agree with the teachings of a bloke called Jesus Christ: you're supposed to love your fellow man, look after him and make the world a better place. That's a very simple message. And we like to make sure, when we interview people, that they have that same viewpoint and are comfortable with that viewpoint.</para>
<para>I refer to Paul Keating—and, you know, it's rather ironic that the agricultural industry was destroyed by the National Party, not by the Labor Party or the Liberal Party; every industry was deregulated by the National Party—and to bananas. Behind the National Party leader's back, he'd already given the import licence for bananas to come in from a country where they paid $5 a day in wages when we paid $28.50 an hour in Australia. I remember it vividly. I had the ABC on—once upon a time I used to listen to the ABC—at six o'clock in the morning, as I got out of bed, and Keating announced that this would be the freest country on earth: 'We are abolishing all tariffs, all subsidies—all gone.' Well, that was a good idea, Paul! The average support level on earth was 42 per cent. So farmers in other countries were getting 42 per cent of their income from their government. Thanks to Keating, we reduced it to four per cent. So we were running a 100 metre race and giving our competitors a 42 metre start. My reaction to his statement was to pick up my boot and throw it at the wall and use some language that my mother told me she'd kill me if she ever heard me saying. And I said: 'What does this bloke mean? Are we going to go down to slave-labour wage levels, or are we going to close down every industry in Australia?'</para>
<para>Well, we closed down the motor vehicle industry. We closed down the fuel industry. Ninety-seven per cent of Australia's fuel was being produced here in Australia. Last year we imported $48,000 million worth of fuel; our total exports were $500 billion; but one 10th of our entire exports was going overseas to buy fuel. That has been the outcome of the free-market policies of the ALP and the LNP. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Bradfield has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7199" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7198" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>151</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I advise the Federation Chamber that in the House it has been agreed that a general debate will be allowed covering this bill and the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. I call the member for Kennedy, in continuation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I referred to my home town of Charters Towers, and we could not afford to build our humble little Logan unit. My wife cut our land in half, got a surveyor and went and applied to get a subdivision approved by the mines department. The town of Charters Towers was under the Mining Act; it was a mining town. The clerk to the mining warden's court made the decision about whether you got a subdivision or whether you didn't. He looked at the application put in by my wife and said: 'Yes, that'll be right, Suse. Just sign here. Have you got the survey plan there? Yes, thank you.' So he signed the document and he signed the survey plan, and then he stamped both of them. My wife said, 'When can I sell it?' and he said, 'Well, you can go down to the real estate agent and sell it right now.' The next day we completed the sale on the 10 acres, and we were able to complete our house and move into it. It was a very big thing to us as a young couple to get our own house and be able to build the sort of house that we wanted for ourselves—a very humble Logan unit, one of those prefabricated modular houses. But the process took about 15 minutes.</para>
<para>If you go in now and put in an application, the Mining Act has been abolished by the incoming Labor government—one of many things they wrecked in Queensland. So we went under the Local Government Act. If you go in to Charters Towers or any other city or town in Queensland and put your application in for a subdivision, the average time I'm told is now about four years. It was 15 minutes, and now it is four years. Normally it would take you $30,000 or $40,000 to get a report in from the local First Australians that were in a tribe or something some time ago there. Now you have to get a report to them and approved. Then you've got to get one from the environment department approved. Then you've got to get one from the engineering department approved. Then it has to be suitable land usage, and you've got to get that approved. Yes, it's about 4½ years and about $40,000 or $50,000.</para>
<para>I was a member of parliament for 20 years under the Mining Act in a town of about 13,000 people, and I never got one complaint about the Mining Act and its administration—not one single complaint in 20 years. So why did you fix up something that wasn't broken? In fact, why didn't you make all the other areas in Queensland the same as the mining areas? Anyway, you want to placate this group over here and you want to placate that group over there, so we've got to make sure all those things are right. Now, for the price of land, after it was transferred from the Mining Act—with no process at all—to the Local Government Act, there is an enormous process. It went from $7,000 for a vacant allotment to $142,000 in just eight months—and to achieve what? What did you achieve by putting those impositions upon those people?</para>
<para>When I look back on it, we were a freedom party. We had no restrictions on anything. For example, we had no restrictions on guns at all. I saw an AK-47 in a sports store, went over and bought it—with 350 rounds of ammunition—put it in the back of the car and drove all around the Gold Coast for the rest of the day. There were no gun laws at all, except for concealable firearms, and we had eight deaths with guns. Well, in the highly restrictive states: New South Wales had 38 deaths from guns in that year, and Victoria had 54 deaths from guns. We had hardly any deaths at all. We had eight deaths from guns.</para>
<para>Freedom: don't you put any price on freedom at all? How can you possibly say you live in a free country? My grandkids were coming up for a visit, and I said: 'Oh, beauty. We'll get out the air rifles.' My wife said: 'They're not allowed to use air rifles. They're under 16.' I said, 'What is it with my air rifles? They're 65 years old. They couldn't go through tissue paper.' She said, 'They're not allowed.' I said, 'Righto, I'll set up the flying fox'—you know, zoom, zoom, zoom and a splash in the pool. My wife said, 'No, you've got to take the panel off the swimming pool to do that. That's illegal,' she said. 'Yeah, but we don't get any inspectors out here.' We had an inspector out last week. Our fence is almost three centimetres below what it should be. He wants the whole fence renewed, which will cost $3,785. So that's $3,875 to renew the fence because it's three centimetres below where it should be. I said, 'Alright, we'll build the second stage of the tree house.' My wife said, 'No, a kid fell out of a tree house two months ago in Brisbane and tree houses are banned.' Free country? Free country?</para>
<para>I said, 'We'll just go down to the flat.' We've got 10 acres, and all of our neighbours got 10 acres. Why don't we just go down to the flat, boil a billy and make damper. You know, teach them how to make damper'—the most iconic pastime in Australian history. If you go to the National Gallery you'll see how many paintings there are based upon camp fires. She said, 'No, you must get a permit to light a fire in the open and it will take you two or three months to get the permit through, so you can forget about that.' Free country? There's a picture of myself boiling a billy—the most iconic of Australia. This is banned in Queensland! Boiling a billy is banned in Queensland!</para>
<para>If you indulge every imbecile that comes along with a complaint, and it might be a valid complaint, but if you indulge him by persecuting the rest of the bloody population and taking away their freedoms then you end up with what you've got in Queensland, which is one of the most unfree societies on earth. I get a lot of people who come in from communist countries and they say to me, 'We can't believe what it's like here. We come from a free country. In politics there is no freedom. We're not interested in politics. But here you can't do any bloody thing!' That's pretty right. You can't do any bloody thing. I'm sorry to be using the time in parliament to give individual examples, but I do this.</para>
<para>There is a dreadful outbreak of Leucaena, which is an absolutely dreadful thing. It is so thick on either side of the road driving into Townsville that you can't actually walk through it. Never mind seeing through it, you can't walk through it. It contributes absolutely nothing, it's an introduced species, but we had an outbreak at our neighbours—it's just up the hill from us. It's vacant crown land. I paid a bloke to cut it down and poison it all, but I can't burn it! I've got to wait for the fire brigade! By that time, the seed will have blown away and it'll have got away, but I'm not allowed to burn it. I emphasise the issue of freedoms.</para>
<para>We're talking about housing here. We can provide 5,000 blocks of land in Ingham and Charters Towers. They are an hour and a bit away from Townsville—a population centre of over 300,000 people—so you're not living out in the middle of nowhere. It's a city, a very big city by Australian standards. Everything you get in a big city is there. We've got 5,000 blocks and we believe—and we haven't finally established this, but we believe—we can provide the blocks of land for $36,000. We've got to be very careful here because we don't want to collapse land prices in Ingham and Charters Towers, so we're working our way through that problem. But there's no doubt that we can put on the market a house. If it's one hectare allotments, you don't need headworks charges, you don't need storm and floodwater drainage, you don't need kerbing and channelling, you don't need footpaths and you don't need wall-to-wall bitumen. You just have two lanes and a median strip, and that's all you need. You've just taken about $60,000 out of the price of a piece of land by going to one hectare. You can't do that in big cities like Sydney or Brisbane, but you can do that in towns surrounding a population centre like Townsville or Cairns.</para>
<para>We're starting with the Townsville area and we'll move on to Cairns. But we can provide 5,000 homes under $375,000. That's a decent, moderate—but it looks good—home. Some of them are modular constructions and some are different constructions, but they look good. Alright, they're two-bedroom—they're not big houses—but that's what we can provide for you.</para>
<para>For young people, it is a very sad country that we live in. We belong to a dying race. I think this year the figures will indicate that when 20 Australians die they're only replaced by 16 Australians. Have a good look around you, people here, because you won't be here in 100 years time. It will all be gone. Isn't that sad? Isn't that the most ultimate statement upon a race of people when they simply vanish from the gene pool? Isn't that sad? <inline font-style="italic">Cleo</inline> magazine, no less, did a series of articles on why Australian women don't have children. Only about 15 or 16 per cent said they didn't want children. The vast bulk of them, whilst they wanted children, were putting it off until they had a solid relationship and enough money to settle down and buy a house. There is an element of Christianity in here: you marry for life and you don't just walk out of a relationship when you feel like walking out of it. I'll put that aside for a moment and just say that these young people want to be able to buy a house and settle down before they have kids. They don't get there. Time runs out on them. The body clock runs out. That was the nature of the series of articles in <inline font-style="italic">Cleo</inline> magazine.</para>
<para>I can't look after the rest of Australia. I'm just saying to come to North Queensland. It is freezing cold here in Canberra, but it's not freezing cold where I come from. I don't even own a jacket in North Queensland! It gets hot sometimes, particularly in places on the coast, but it never gets really hot, because the conditions are overcast all the time. These are heavy rainfall areas. It is not hot and it never gets bitterly cold. It is a beautiful place to live. There's a population centred around Cairns of 300,000. The population centred around Townsville is 300,000. As the leader of our party, Robbie Katter, says continuously, we will get the balance of power sooner or later. Whether it is in this election or in 10 years time, we will get the balance of power. When we do, the Galilee Basin will be opened up. Coalmining will be opened up.</para>
<para>If anyone in this place thinks that a tiny, little country of 26 million Europeans living in the middle of Asia is going to tell India that they can't have electricity, you'll want to think again, I warn you. As Carl von Clausewitz wrote in his most famous book <inline font-style="italic">On War</inline>, the best book ever written on warfare, its causes and outcomes: 'A people without land will look for a land without people.' Another quote is: 'When goods don't cross borders, then guns will.' If you say to India they can't have coal, 600 million Indians will have no electricity. They don't have any room to put up solar panels in India, let me tell you. That is not an option for them. Nor are windfarms an option for them. They get coal or they go without. I'm one for cutting back a bit. There is the problem of a rising ocean. I won't go along with climate change, but there is the problem of a rising ocean. I've always been for pulling back a bit. At the present moment, they cook with burning grass, cow dung and wood. Is that a better alternative to having an electric stove? Yes, it burns up a bit of coal somewhere, but nothing like what they're doing at the present moment.</para>
<para>We are a vanishing race. We are a race that only exports three things: coal, iron ore and gas. We gave the gas away, so we get no money for the gas. It is gone. Both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have decided the coal is remaining in place. We will not have any coal—unless you're lying hypocrites, of course; that's possible. But you have said net zero by 2050. The one thing that must mean is no coalmining. I might point out to you that I happen to be a little expert in this field. Silicon is produced by burning coal to smelt— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Everyone loves buy-now pay-later. It's almost like the good old days of lay-by, but you get to take the purchase home straightaway with you on the spot. When buy-now pay-later came onto the scene through businesses like Zip Pay and Afterpay, it boomed in popularity, and I can see why. It's a massive help to be able to purchase something that you might not be able to afford on the spot and be able to pay it off in instalments but still have the ability to own the product on that day. I know there are a lot of people and a lot of families, especially in my electorate, who rely on these kinds of payment systems to be able to get what they need when they need it. It's also great for our local businesses in the Hunter. It means that their customers can come in and buy things from their business without having to wait until the time when their bank accounts allow it.</para>
<para>This legislation is about making sure that those who use buy-now pay-later and those who rely on it are protected. This amendment brings buy-now pay-later products in line with other products, like credit cards and personal loans, by making sure that they are regulated properly under the credit act. The regulatory framework is designed to operate in a way that is flexible, adaptable and proportionate to the risk of the consumer's harm.</para>
<para>Buy-now pay-later was a great invention. It usually works by a third party providing customer finance to cover the purchase of goods and services, as well as the payment of bills. The providers, like Zip Pay or Afterpay, pay for the purchase upfront, and the customer then makes repayments in instalments. At face value, it's a great system which is helpful for so many people. But, sadly, the reality is that some people end up in over their heads. They end up having to repay more than what they may be able to afford. Regardless of how good and helpful something may be, there is always the potential for harm.</para>
<para>People ending up in financial hardship because of this must be avoided. Some of the time, this is a result of the providers of the buy-now pay-later businesses having poor product disclosure, inadequate dispute resolution processes, excessive default fees and unaffordable lending practices that lead to hardship and financial stress. This is because, even though buy-now pay-later products are a form of credit, they are not currently subject to the regulatory framework that applies to other credit products.</para>
<para>A product that is used by people to make life more affordable and to relieve the financial pressure of making big but necessary purchases should not lead to even greater financial pressure for those who use it. People use buy-now pay-later to be able to afford what they need, not to dig themselves into an even deeper financial hole than they would have been in if they hadn't used buy-now pay-later. This is why regulation is needed, and it is a must, to make sure that people who use this aren't taken advantage of and aren't finding themselves in positions of hardship financially after using the service.</para>
<para>The proposed amendments mean that customers using buy-now pay-later will be better protected and that the providers will conduct their operations in a way which is better regulated. The amendment will require providers to hold an Australian credit licence and comply with the existing requirements under the credit act, including the regulations for product disclosure, dispute resolution and hardship assistance. The providers will also be subject to responsible lending obligations. However, providers of products that meet strict fee caps, meaning they are categorised as low-cost credit, will have the option to comply with a modified RLO framework that allows certain requirements to scale down the proportion to the risk of the product.</para>
<para>These changes are about making sure that the level of regulation and protection for consumers is just right. They're about making sure that Australians can continue to make the most of the benefits that come with buy-now pay-later while being better protected as they use it. These amendments are wide ranging and help to make life better for Australians in many different areas. I could talk all day about how this bill will help provide for individuals and businesses in the Hunter and all around the country, but, for the benefit of those here listening today, I will keep it brief.</para>
<para>I know that a lot of people in my electorate are concerned about housing. We have been very focused on building more houses in the time that we have been in government. This bill helps to continue with that focus by encouraging investment in the build-to-rent sector, expanding Australia's housing supply. It does this by reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments, which are distributions of rental income and capital gains, from managed investment trust investments to 15 per cent, down from 30 per cent. The amendment also increases the depreciation rate for capital works in eligible projects from 2.5 per cent per annum to four per cent per annum.</para>
<para>Medicare is one of the pillars that hold up our country. To be able to access high-quality health care regardless of how much money is in your bank is a right that so many people rely on. We are proud to have introduced Medicare, and we'll always protect it. That's what a Labor government does. Medicare is only made possible by the Medicare levy, but sometimes we need to make tweaks. This legislation ensures that the Medicare levy would not be payable in respect to eligible lump sum payments in arrears. In 2022 the Senate economics committee's inquiry into unlawful underpayment of employees' remuneration revealed an issue. There are existing offsets that compensate individuals for additional income tax and Medicare levy surcharge liabilities incurred as a result of receiving lump sum payments—for example, as compensation for unpaid wages. But these offsets do not compensate taxpayers for any of the additional Medicare levy incurred. We are putting this right, and we expect that up to 3,400 individuals will benefit from this.</para>
<para>Another change being proposed is in relation to multinational tax transparency. In the election we said that we would make sure that big multinationals would pay their fair share of tax, and this change makes sure they will. It's not fair that multimillion-dollar companies pay less tax than a hardworking mum and dad in my electorate trying to provide for their families. These changes are about putting this right.</para>
<para>We're also making changes to the deductible gifts to help encourage giving in the Australian community, which will be a massive help to all kinds of not-for-profit organisations and charities that rely so much on the generosity of Australians to be able to keep providing the amazing services and products that they do every day.</para>
<para>Another area of these amendments focuses on our skills and workforce. The Commonwealth and states have agreed to strengthen Australian skills through a landmark five-year national skills agreement. The agreement sees national cooperation and strategic investment in our vocational education and training sectors. This means that investment of up to $12.6 billion will help expand and transform access to the VET sector, support quality training and implement reforms to address critical skills needs.</para>
<para>There are also proposed changes that offset something for our small businesses. I know that in my electorate there are a lot of people who own their own business, and we need to support them in any way that we can. That's why we're extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off by 12 months until 30 June 2025 to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small business. This means that a small business with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000. This is great news for many small business owners in the Hunter and for over four million small businesses across the country.</para>
<para>As you can see, this is a wide-ranging bill that touches on many different areas. But, because of this, people in my electorate will benefit in all kinds of ways, from being better protected when buying now and paying later to being able to get things that they need for their businesses through the instant asset write-off. There really is something for everyone. There are multiple changes being proposed, but they are also necessary changes. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government gives billions of dollars in tax handouts to property investors, driving up the price of housing and denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Housing Australia Future Fund has not built a single home; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the median rent in Australia is now $621 and capital city rents have increased 9.5 per cent over the past year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) freeze rent increases for two years followed by ongoing caps of 2 per cent every two years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) phase out negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) establish a publicly-owned developer to build hundreds of thousands of good quality homes to be sold and rented at prices people can actually afford".</para></quote>
<para>There are a lot of things in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 that Labor has bundled together that are completely unrelated to each other, which in itself seems to be a way to avoid scrutiny of key elements of it. Some of the things in this bill the Greens support, but I want to focus in particular on the build-to-rent component of this bill.</para>
<para>Once again Labor is not only tinkering around the edges of this housing crisis; it is bowling up plans that will make this housing crisis worse. How is it that, in the middle of the worst housing crisis that we have seen in generations—millions of renters and mortgage holders falling into severe financial stress, millions of first home buyers unable to buy their first home—Labor's proposal is to give more tax handouts to property developers and investment funds to build rental apartments that almost no-one will be able to afford?</para>
<para>Labor's so-called build-to-rent plan is really just a developer tax break plan that will see developers receive tax handouts for building unaffordable rentals. Labor's claim is that 10 per cent of these apartments have to be affordable. But, before we get to that—even if that were true, which it's not—that means the other 90 per cent, by definition, will be unaffordable. In fact, we know how build-to-rent projects work in this country. We've had plenty of evidence to demonstrate just how unaffordable they are.</para>
<para>Mirvac, in Sydney, is one of the biggest property developers in Australia. The outgoing CEO of Mirvac, by the way, is now the head of Labor's National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, the body that's meant to advise the government on housing affordability. When Mirvac did build-to-rent in Sydney, they bragged to their shareholders about the fact that their rentals were between 15 and 20 per cent above market rent, which basically means that they have a build-to-rent scheme that is driving up rents in the area in which they're building.</para>
<para>Another build-to-rent project, down in Melbourne, saw tenants evicted out of those apartments, and then the apartments were relisted, with $185-a-week rent increases, to over $1,000 a week in rent. This is the scheme that Labor wants to give public money to developers to continue. It has seen 15 to 20 per cent premiums on rent, increases on market rent in that area and tenants evicted so that then the property developer can put the apartments back on the market with massive increases in the rent.</para>
<para>Let's get to the 10 per cent affordable. Labor's definition of 'affordable' in this bill is 74.9 per cent of market rent. That might work if it weren't for the fact that market rents over the last four years have skyrocketed. Let's take an example. For a two-bedroom unit in Marrickville or around there, currently the market rent is around $878 a week. Under Labor's definition of affordable, that rent would be $657 a week. That means a nurse living in an 'affordable' rental under the scheme, earning a gross income of about $80,000 a year, would still have to spend over 50 per cent of their take-home pay on rent—and that's meant to be affordable! I would argue that this definition of affordable demonstrates again just how out of touch Labor are with the experience that renters live day to day. Spending over half of your income on rent is not affordable.</para>
<para>The other thing here is that, in the bill—and this is remarkable—Labor propose to impose forms of regulation on how the rentals can function. They've said that, the first time that these apartments are rented out, they need to be rented out on a minimum three-year lease. This is crucial, because Labor have repeatedly claimed that they can't actually impose any regulations on rentals. But here they are admitting that they could. What they've proposed is a bill where they do have the power and could put caps and freezes on rents that are funded out of this scheme, but they refuse to.</para>
<para>So we have a scheme where public money will go to a property developer in the form of tax handouts to build apartments that almost no-one will be able to afford, which in the past have been rented out at 15 to 20 per cent above market rent. They will then go onto the market, and presumably a renter might be able to rent them—already probably in financial stress. While this developer is receiving public money, they will then be able to increase the rent by as much as they want at the end of that three-year lease period—maybe even during, depending on the agreement. That's 90 per cent of rentals in those apartments.</para>
<para>The other component here is that the bill says that 50 of those rentals have to be rented out at any one time. If a developer builds an apartment block of 100 or 150 rentals, they could literally only rent out 50 and the drip-feed the rest of the apartments onto the market, depending on how much they can get for them. Again we could have a situation where developers are receiving public tax handouts from the government while they are sitting on over a hundred vacant apartments. This demonstrates again that Labor keeps trying to avoid the clear solutions to this housing crisis. They keep trying to find ways to give public money to developers and give out tax handouts, ignoring the fact that property investors already get billions of dollars in tax handouts every year in the form of negative gearing and capital gains tax discount, but they deny millions of renters a chance to buy a home. The sick thing about it is that their solution to the housing crisis, where renters are already paying too much on rent and already facing completely unfair rent increases, is to bowl up a bill where they give tax handouts to property investors to build rentals where they can put up the rent by as much as they want on 90 per cent of the rentals and still get to charge exorbitant rent on the others, especially if they're in places like Sydney.</para>
<para>The reality is that the best form of build-to-rent is government built housing where they build it themselves and rent it out at prices that people can actually afford. There are countries around the world that do this. For instance, in Vienna, in Austria, we have the government and city council helping to build affordable rentals were they rent them out at capped prices, which means that tenants in these beautifully designed rentals that the government helps build and sometimes builds itself rent them at proportions of their income such that they are not paying any more than 10 to 15 per cent of their income on rent.</para>
<para>If the government wanted to solve this crisis—especially the rental crisis—there are three clear things they could do. On this bill, at the very least they could include the idea that, if a developer receives public money, 100 per cent of the apartments could be affordable. They could put a freeze and cap on rent increases on the apartments that are being built under this scheme so that, if a developer is receiving public money, at the very least they're not allowed to jack up the rent by as much as they want. They could do all that but have decided they're not going to, because apparently this seems to be about funnelling more cash into the pockets of property developers, who dictate the government's policy on housing.</para>
<para>Overall, if they want to deal with the rental crisis, there are three clear things the government could do. In coordination with National Cabinet, they could introduce a nationwide freeze and cap on rent increases across the entire rental market in Australia. We know that, if the government had taken their chance when under Greens pressure National Cabinet met last year in August to discuss national rental plans, where all but one person at the table was from the Labor Party. They could have decided to introduce a national freeze and cap on rent increases. It would have saved the average renter over $4,000 on rent, but, more importantly, it would have stopped millions of renters falling into financial stress. It would have stopped thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people being evicted onto the streets or into their cars, forcing people to choose between paying the rent and feeding their kids. That's what a freeze and cap on rent increases can do. We know it works, because in the government's own housing reports they found that Europe—Europe, which has the most widespread use of rent caps—has the lowest rent increases in the developed world. Australia, with no rent caps outside of the ACT, has the second-highest rent increases in the developed world.</para>
<para>The second thing they could do is phase out the tax handouts for property investors that are denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home. We know right now that the income you need to buy a house and avoid mortgage stress is $164,000 a year. What is a teacher meant to do with that? What is a nurse meant to do with that? What is someone who's just graduated from university meant to do with that? What is a middle-income family meant to do with that? Until we phase out those tax handouts, renters who could buy a home will be trapped in a dodgy rental market where there are unlimited rent increases.</para>
<para>So phase out the tax handouts for property investors that mean, when a renter goes to an auction, they're beaten out by a property investor because they can't afford to compete with a property investor who has thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars of tax handouts in their back pocket from this government. Phase out those tax handouts and save the government billions of dollars in revenue that they could then invest in setting up a government owned developer—like they do in Europe, like Australia basically did in the past and like they do across the world, including Singapore—and build hundreds of thousands of good-quality homes and rent them out at prices people can afford.</para>
<para>We're not saying the government has to do it all, but why not get involved in the same way that countries across Europe do, with beautifully designed apartments and houses? Those are solutions to the housing crisis. None of it is radical, because it's done all around the world. All we're proposing are solutions that other countries have used to tackle the housing crisis and ensure that anyone, regardless of their income and background, is able to move in to a good-quality home with rent capped or, at the very least, pay housing costs that they can actually afford and that allow them to go on and live a good life.</para>
<para>None of this is impossible. It's been done around the world. It appears that the only barrier is the power that property developers, banks and the property industry wield over this government, who time and again choose the financial interests of banks, property developers and investors over the interests of mortgage holders, renters and the millions of people being screwed over by a housing system that always puts them last.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Watson-Brown</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Petrie moved, as an amendment, that all the words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Griffith has now moved, as an amendment to that amendment, that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Petrie be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't think of any issue more pressing to all Australians right now than the cost of living and housing affordability. For years in opposition, across my electorate, people shared their aspirations for good-quality, affordable housing, which was becoming more and more out of reach. That was a story that was reflected across Australia, and it's not a new story. Frankly, it was a problem that deepened, festered and got worse through 10 years of inaction by the previous coalition government. It's an issue that the Albanese Labor government, in our first two years, has been working every day to fix.</para>
<para>As median weekly rents continue to rise, private rentals are becoming increasingly unaffordable for many across Australia, let alone for our most vulnerable. More than 45,000 rental listings across the country were recently examined by Anglicare, and the report found that just 0.6 per cent were considered affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage. Only 0.2 per cent were affordable for people on the age pension, and 0.1 per cent for people on the disability support pension. None were affordable for someone on youth allowance. These are unacceptable statistics. For a decade the coalition, when they were in government and sat on the Treasury benches, allowed this issue of housing supply and affordability to fester. They ignored the pleas of Australians for help.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has actually been answering that call to action in the two years since we got elected. Why? Because, fundamentally and philosophically, we are very different ideologically from those on the other side. For us, safe, affordable and secure housing is a fundamental human right. It's fundamentally the foundational aspect for building a better life and for building a good life. It's not just about the economics and commercial value of property. It is a fundamental human right. It's the base from which people can realise their full potential. That's an issue very close to my heart because I grew up in a housing commission, like the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing; we're housos. I understood, and my migrant family understood, how important having that roof over our heads was when we were starting out in Australia and trying to build a new life.</para>
<para>My message today is very simple: whether you're looking to rent or buy, this government, the Albanese Labor government, is here to support you. Since coming into government, housing has been front of mind. It's been front and centre in terms of our efforts on affordability and supply. We have taken massive steps to rebalance the scales that have been unbalanced for such a long time. As part of this debate, everyone—well, almost everyone—understands that increasing supply is the main issue. Australia doesn't have enough homes, and we haven't for a while. Our priority is simple: to build more homes for more Australians. We need to do it faster while also providing immediate support for Australians that are currently in need. That's why the Labor government has an ambitious national target of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. This is, of course, a big challenge, but it is a challenge we must meet in order to fix what is a long-term problem.</para>
<para>Our recent budget that was just passed added $6.2 billion in new investment to build more of those new homes more quickly, bringing the total commitment of the Albanese Labor government to new housing initiatives to $32 billion just in the space of two years. We're about supporting the building of new homes by growing our construction workforce as well. It's not just about the investment. There are a lot of different elements to this: $1.5 billion has been provided to the states and territories for housing infrastructure works and for more social housing, and there's been direct support through this funding for tens of thousands of new social and affordable homes through our significant investments, including the Housing Australia Future Fund—a fund which, by the way, was delayed by those opposite, by a minor party and by the Greens political party for months, and which could have been used to start building more houses if it was passed. But they decided to play politics with it.</para>
<para>This year's budget is also helping around a million Australian households with the cost of rent by delivering $1.9 billion over five years to increase Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 10 per cent. That's on top of the 15 per cent increase that we announced back in September 2023. Again, this is meant to provide real support—cost of living support—for Australians in need today and now. This is the first back-to-back increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years.</para>
<para>To support these ongoing efforts, we're also introducing the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill, because this legislation actually incentivises investments in the build-to-rent sector, which will help expand the housing supply in Australia. Build-to-rent housing is multi-unit, purpose-built rental housing, where the units, instead of being sold off, are rented out through a single management entity. As part of this bill, at least 10 per cent of homes in these new developments must be rented out affordably, helping to deliver more long-term affordable homes for more Australians. This means that rent needs to be set at 74.9 per cent or less than the market rent of a comparable home in the same project.</para>
<para>Most importantly, who is eligible for these affordable homes? It applies to tenants whose household income is under the required income limits—set according to household composition. The quality of these homes won't be impacted: the bill has provisions in place to ensure affordable homes and non-affordable homes are of equal quality. These measures apply from 1 July 2024, and eligible projects must have commenced construction after 9 May 2023. It's a practice that has been done in the US and the UK as a way to increase the affordable housing supply in the places where people want to live—not two or three hours away from their place of work, because they can't afford to live near the hospital or medical clinic where they work as a nurse or the kindergarten where they work as a teacher or early education teacher.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 17:18 to 17:35</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, this has had a life-changing impact on people overseas, and it also will in Australia. I recently spoke to Michael, a young renter living on his own in Brunswick, in my electorate. He told me what it has been like to experience three rent increases over the last three years, going from paying $2,380 a month in 2022 to paying $2,600 this year. A huge proportion of his wage goes to rent and bills, which doesn't leave much for anything else. Michael, like a lot of others, is struggling to make ends meet. So much of this is linked to housing affordability. Access to good quality, affordable, build-to-rent housing would make balancing the budget so much easier for people like Michael. It would allow him to save up a house deposit of his own, if that were his goal, or to buy a car, travel, or pay off his HECS debt.</para>
<para>By incentivising investment in the build-to-rent sector, the Labor government is increasing supply and bringing housing affordability under control. I know that many Australians are struggling to meet the cost of living at the moment. Rents are rising, and we know that shortages in supply are pushing rents up even higher. That's why this government recognises that more needs to be done to increase rental supply. The government acknowledges that there is a shortage of new rental stock. That's why build to rent is a concept that is already popular overseas and is now going to grow across Australia. It's something that the Albanese government has already introduced to increase the supply of available rental properties. As more build-to-rent sites come to market, this will also help to manage the increases in rental prices.</para>
<para>This legislation we are debating is all about incentivising the construction of those new build-to-rent developments because we want more investment in the build-to-rent sector. We want more of those affordable homes because we want to continue expanding Australia's housing supply. This problem is fundamentally about supply, supply, supply. Everything we are doing is about increasing that supply and addressing the problem. That's why the Albanese government is making a significant investment into housing after a decade of very little or no action from the former coalition government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before us we have a very large omnibus bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, packed with seven very distinct schedules. I would say it's a bad habit that the minister has of putting together very disparate issues, which ultimately means you avoid scrutiny on those individual schedules and parts.</para>
<para>There are three of the seven schedules that I will speak to today; three key areas. First, there are the build-to-rent incentives. Although I'm not necessarily confident that Warringah residents will see benefits from these incentives for more affordable housing, they are, nonetheless, very important. Secondly, the bill legislates a $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses for the new financial year, starting 1 July, even though it should be noted that the write-off promise for this current financial year has not been legislated. It urgently needs to be done because, ultimately, it misleads small businesses into thinking they have an asset write-off available to them. Also, the scope of that asset write-off, at $20,000, is, I would argue, not sufficient.</para>
<para>Thirdly, there is the schedule concerning buy-now pay-later operators, who will finally be better regulated under the credit act. This will help stem the tide of abuse by some partners or spouses, for example, through these operators. It is a form of family and domestic violence when debts are racked up on behalf of partners. It is also an area where people are unknowingly accumulating huge amounts of debt that have a serious impact on their capacity to meet the costs of living and other areas.</para>
<para>I will turn to the schedule in relation to build-to-rent. We desperately need more houses in the country. There is no doubt. It is very much an issue topical in every corner of the country. I continue to get a huge amount of correspondence from constituents in Warringah worried about housing. It's a generational thing as well, where young people, having grown up in the area, face a situation where it is completely unaffordable to stay anywhere near where they grew up. I'll be hosting a forum on this in a few months, because of course it is incredibly complex to solve this problem of getting more housing supply but also having it affordable.</para>
<para>In Warringah we have some of the highest property price increases when it comes to purchasing a property but also some of the most expensive rents in the country. We know there is a significant amount of housing stress, and it is incredibly difficult, because we are also bound by an ocean on one side, and we do not have the public transport infrastructure necessary to go into any kind of higher-density building in our area. We know housing and cost-of-living stress are biting, especially with those high rents. One of our local charities, One Meal Northern Beaches, is providing record numbers of meals to those facing food insecurity as a result of soaring rental and energy costs and many other aspects. We know households and young people are under stress. They are incredibly burdened with HECS debts and other areas of debt. We simply must be doing more.</para>
<para>As I've said a number of times, every tool and lever need to be looked at to alleviate the housing crisis that we're currently in. It is—make no mistake—a result of years and years of policies, from both sides of government, that have incentivised people to view housing as an investment strategy. Unfortunately, with that has come now a situation where housing supply has not kept up with the population. We need systematic reform or it will get very much worse. I agree that we must have policies from government that ensure that housing is available to everyone in our society.</para>
<para>The government has committed, through this bill and this schedule, to build 1.2 million houses by the end of the decade, and reducing the acute shortage of new rental stock is absolutely fundamental to achieving this. The government has been unveiling several new initiatives to help tackle the crisis, and this bill provides another piece of the puzzle—build-to-rent tax incentives. These provisions will go some way to alleviate the lack of supply of rental properties, at least in some parts of the country.</para>
<para>Some aspects of this bill are encouraging, including the eligibility criteria—that is, a minimum number of dwellings of 50 or more, and minimum lease terms required to be for three years. These build-to-rent developments must be held under single ownership for a minimum of 15 years, providing stability and certainty to renters—something very few renters experience in the market currently.</para>
<para>It should be clear that the current build-to-rent market in Australia is basically at a standing start. It just hasn't had focus. It makes up a tiny 0.2 per cent of the current housing market. Compared to other countries, we are just way behind. In the UK, it's at five per cent of investment, and in the US it's at 12 per cent of housing supply. There the model has helped expand housing supply.</para>
<para>In Australia, to date, the build-to-rent market has been focused more on the higher end of the market. It is encouraging that this bill intends to increase rental supply more broadly—including in the affordable housing area, with a requirement for 10 per cent of the dwellings to be tenanted on an affordable basis. Of course the question of 'an affordable basis' is very dependent on regions and geography.</para>
<para>That is where the difficulty is for Warringah. We have some of the highest rents in the country, and so that 'affordable basis' is unlikely to be of much assistance here. CoreLogic data shows that renters in Warringah are paying a median rent of over $1,100 per week, compared to $627 per week across Australia. Affordable housing is defined as the rent payable being set at 74.9 per cent of rent payable in a comparable dwelling in an open market. Given the astronomical levels of rents in Warringah, a rent set at that 74.9 per cent may still not be affordable for people on lower incomes, especially for the frontline service workers and essential service workers who we are ultimately trying to incentivise with this scheme. I'm concerned that they are likely not to get that benefit in Warringah. So I would encourage the government to start showing more precision in its policy-making on housing.</para>
<para>I'd encourage the government to do more when it comes to other areas. For example, this legislation is—as is other legislation from the government—consistently silent on housing initiatives and building standards. So, if we're going to be putting public money and tax incentives towards these kinds of projects, I would ask the government, urgently, to consider that, right around the country, we must take into account climate resilience in everything we build. Everything we are paying for, everything we are incentivising, must be climate resilient, or we will have a situation where it will be short-term supply that will be at risk, and then we will have public money needing to come in because of emergency funding when disasters strike.</para>
<para>We know housing is a wicked policy area. The government talks up the big numbers that they have been investing, but I think there needs to be a reality check on how much will actually be delivered when it comes to some of the building projects and the supply.</para>
<para>The government needs to remember that places such as Warringah—higher socioeconomic areas—as well as others have a variety of need for housing and that cookie-cutter solutions won't always work during this crisis. Things like going back to thinking about having boarders—having rooms for rent within homes—and having a tax incentive that incentivises, for example, granny flats, and those kinds of things, can also assist with supply. So I would urge the government to think outside the square and have more solutions on the table.</para>
<para>Another schedule in this legislation is the small business instant asset write-off. It's interesting. We now have it back on the table. It was announced in the budget again for this next financial year. Ironically, a year ago, we had the same announcement in the budget; that asset write-off was there and promised to small businesses. But that legislation hasn't passed in this financial year. So, if a business did a purchase, hoping to be able to rely on that measure, it has essentially got a couple of weeks—it has run out of time, essentially.</para>
<para>It's been quite disappointing to see that there have been political games played on this, where the government has refused to negotiate or to put anything more on the table, and, on the other hand, we have seen the coalition and the Greens move for it to be amended, which obviously has budgeting issues as well. I support that it be increased. We know small businesses are suffering enormously, with high interest rates and high and rising insurance costs—and I should note that the highest inflationary items for small businesses and households are in fact those rises in insurance premiums—and high energy prices, staff shortages and low consumer confidence. There is just a perfect storm.</para>
<para>Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They make up 97.3 per cent of businesses in Australia. In Warringah we have a vibrant hub of economic activity. We have over 8,000 small businesses, which employ many people, and some 12,000 sole traders.</para>
<para>My office and volunteers recently undertook a survey of small businesses in the electorate, and, whilst it's not finished yet, there are some clear issues that have come out. Those are around taxation, cash flow, inflation, red tape and government regulation. The IR changes have certainly made it more difficult for small businesses, and, of course, everything has been going up, including rent, utilities, insurance and wages. Recruiting and keeping qualified staff is an issue, and, right now, 43 per cent of small businesses are not breaking even. So this should be at the forefront of the government's focus.</para>
<para>In March this year, COSBOA reported that 1,000 businesses became insolvent—the worst result on record since 2015. Approximately three in four business owners are taking home less than the average minimum wage, because usually, in small businesses, the business owner works in that business and, ultimately, does not take a wage for themselves. Organisations like COSBOA are reporting and advocating on behalf of small businesses that more needs to be done by the government to support them. So, whilst I welcome this relief measure, I am concerned that it wasn't available in this financial year, and we need to do more.</para>
<para>Instant asset write-off is undoubtedly a useful tool for enhancing small-business cashflow and encouraging investment. The feedback is generally positive. Small businesses in Warringah have expressed concerns, though, that the temporary nature of the provision makes long-term business planning incredibly difficult. I think this should be made more permanent, with a larger fixed amount to provide certainty and stability for small businesses. We absolutely need to support small businesses to electrify to become energy efficient and increase savings. We need to help them decarbonise, because that can make a huge difference on their way as well. Inclusion of the energy incentive, again, could have further assisted small businesses to buy heat pumps, cooling systems, batteries and more efficient appliances, like fridges and lighting—so many areas can, and should, be made better for them.</para>
<para>Finally, I welcome that buy-now pay-later is finally going to be regulated as a form of credit. Until now, these services have largely been unregulated, and they have caused harm amongst our most vulnerable. In particular—and it's quite frightening—these services have caused harm amongst those suffering from family and domestic violence. Good Shepherd, a provider of family violence and financial wellbeing services, have said that perpetrators may coerce women to sign up for a buy-now pay-later account or fraudulently use their personal details to accrue debts through buy-now pay-later. Equally, victims-survivors may be forced to turn to buy-now pay-later services when access to their money or ability to cover living expenses is controlled or restricted by an abusive partner.</para>
<para>In fact, in 2022 a University of Sydney study found that one participant had suffered financial abuse from a former partner who had accrued $9,000 of debt with 12 buy-now pay-later services. She told the study: 'I had a poor credit rating, but I was still approved for every provider. I missed so many payments and never received any assistance—just fees.' So it is incredibly important to now bring buy-now pay-later, a form of purchasing, under similar regulation to other forms of credit. We know there is still an issue with this current form of legislation. There's an assumption that debts of under $2,000 are okay or assumed to carry lower risk of harm, but the legislation could better protect people by limiting that $2,000 further. We know that we have to combat financial abuse, and this is a complex area.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight 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. I will briefly set out the seven schedules before I descend into a bit of detail. Along with the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill, schedule 1 implements tax incentives for build-to-rent developments, and an associated misuse tax as a compliance measure for incorrect claims against the BTR concession. Schedule 2 implements long-awaited regulatory reforms for the buy-now pay-later sector. Schedule 3 implements a Medicare levy exemption for lump sum payments. Schedule 4 implements public country-by-country tax reporting for multinational companies with a commercial presence in Australia. Schedule 5 legislates the budget measure to list entities as deductible gift recipients. Schedule 6 amends the Federal Financial Relations Act to give effect to payments to the states, associated with 23 October national skills agreement and any success agreements. Schedule 7 extends the instant asset write-off at an asset cap of $20,000 for the 2024-25 financial year.</para>
<para>In relation to the build-to-rent scheme, every Australian knows just how hard—it doesn't matter where in the country you are living. Everywhere, everybody I speak to is talking about not just a cost-of-living crisis but a housing crisis. When I was the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I did a very detailed inquiry into housing and homelessness, and we identified the wall of problems that was heading our way. I'm really sad to say that we are nowhere more advanced in relation to resolving those problems; in fact, it's worse. Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie, I know that you know just how bad is in regions and electorates like yours. But it's not confined just to country areas or remote areas; it's in our cities as well.</para>
<para>I was speaking to a constituent just last night who, sadly, is going through a divorce. She's a nurse with two young kids, and she was talking about when she would have to sell the family home. She was saying: 'Where am I going to live? I've got two little kids, two little girls. I'm going to end up with virtually nothing out of the marriage, and where am I going to live?' She's a nurse. So does that mean one of our frontline workers has to move to Gympie, Kingaroy or somewhere else? The problem with the Sunshine Coast, as beautiful as it is, is that it's being loved to death. Everybody wants to move to the Sunshine Coast, and prices have gone through the roof. You can't buy a house on the Sunshine Coast now—even the most terrible house—for under $700,000. It's really almost impossible to rent a home now for under $500 a week. Organisations like ACOSS tell us—and I think it's pretty well accepted—if you are spending more than 30 per cent of your income on either rent or mortgage payments, you are in housing distress.</para>
<para>A report came out just recently—just this week—that talked about the Sunshine Coast in particular. It said that frontline essential workers like police, like nurses, on a single income like the lady I was talking about, are priced out of not only buying a home but even renting a home on the Sunshine Coast now. If you are a single-income earner and you're an essential worker, you can't live on the Sunshine Coast. That is an absolute tragedy. It's an absolute tragedy because how are we going to get our police? How are we going to get our nurses? It's all well and good for us—and I am fortunate in that I own my own home and we are seeing significant increases in value in homes—but I really despair for the young people like the young woman that I was speaking to last night. I despair for my adult kids. I don't know how they're ever going to buy their own home if they haven't got one now. I've got only one out of four who's got their own home. This is a wicked problem.</para>
<para>Those members opposite talked the big talk about how they were going to make housing cheaper. How can those members opposite talk about making housing cheaper when interest rates have gone up 12 times under their watch? On 12 occasions interest rates have gone up. Do you know what the value of the average mortgage in Australia is now?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it $700,000?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's $750,000. Can you believe that? I didn't believe that when I first saw it. Do you also know how much those same people with an average mortgage are paying in mortgage repayments above what they were paying when the coalition was in government?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to say over 20 grand a year.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's $25,000 after tax. For the sake of the maths, let's call it $24,000. That's $2,000 a month after tax, over and above what they were paying when the coalition was in government, that the average mum and dad have got to find to make their mortgage repayments.</para>
<para>An opposition member: Go and get a second job and pay 50 per cent tax!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's not just a matter of getting a second job. It's a matter of maybe even getting a third job.</para>
<para>Then you've got to look at what this is doing to the fabric of families. When I'm out there doorknocking at homes in my electorate—and I'm sure the same goes for all members in this House—people are really badly hurting. They are hurting, and they are angry that they've been sold a pup. They were promised cheaper mortgages. The Prime Minister, during the election campaign, stood up and said 'Support me, vote for me, and I'll ensure you'll have cheaper mortgages.' That's what he said. Let's call it $24,000; let's do a bit of a discount. It's $24,000 a year after tax. Where did that promise go? Then of course he promised Australians that they would be paying $275 a year less in energy bills. How did that one go?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Down the tube.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Down the tube—definitely down the tube. We know that the average family is now paying somewhere around about $1,250 dollars a year more on their electricity bill than what they were paying under the coalition government. But fear not! The very generous Treasurer, in the last budget, has provided Australians a $300 energy rebate. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have the gall to stand up in the House of Representatives and say, 'You're getting a $300 discount on energy bills,' totally disregarding the over $1,200 more that people are now paying. It's kind of like punching someone in the face and then stopping and expecting them to thank you. This government talks the big talk about cheap, renewable energy, but everyday Australians are not seeing it.</para>
<para>This government talks about the importance of the build-to-rent scheme and about providing homes to Australians, but we learnt only about a month ago, probably not even that, that this government has spent $30 million—that's three-zero—on their Housing Australia Future Fund. Do you know how many houses they've built? I'll give you a clue: it starts with 'Z' and ends with 'O'. Donuts. Thirty million dollars, for not one house to be built. Only a Labor federal government can deliver that. So when they come out and talk the big talk about this build-to-rent scheme, you will excuse an old chippie for being a little bit sceptical about this government's plan to resolve the housing crisis that we now find ourselves in. This government is all about providing mechanisms for institutional investors to own these build-to-rent schemes. The big super funds and foreign companies will own these build-to-rent schemes. They will be the ones that invest in these build-to-rent schemes.</para>
<para>At the same time, we know that there is a push within certain segments of the Labor Party to try and take away taxation benefits from mum-and-dad investors who have residential investment properties. So it's okay for a big super fund to own homes, and it's okay for a big super fund to rent homes to Australians, but it's not okay for you. It's not okay for a mum-and-dad investor to own or to have that aspiration. We saw this when Paul Keating tried to outlaw negative gearing. The floor fell out of the residential investment market, because residential investors—mums and dads—just said: 'We're out of here. We'll go put the money in the stock market.' We saw that, and we know that there are people on the government benches who would like to see negative gearing gone. Certainly, we know that the Greens do not believe in negative gearing.</para>
<para>We also know that, after the next election, it is entirely possible that we could be in minority government, where a Labor government is in some form of coalition or power-sharing arrangement with the Greens. And we know that the Greens have consistently said that they are absolutely, ideologically opposed to negative gearing. If this government is reliant upon the Greens for their ability to stay in power, God help this country. You can rest assured that, if that is the case, there will be very, very significant pressure brought to bear by the Greens on the Labor government to eliminate negative gearing. And then it will be history repeating itself—repeating what happened with Paul Keating. Residential investors will desert the market. And where will we be? Where will renters be? It is a real problem, not a fanciful problem, and this government needs to come out and support residential investors.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As has been said by previous speakers, there are seven schedules to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I only plan to speak to two of the schedules, with one being schedule 1. Schedule 1, along with the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024, implements tax incentives for build-to-rent developments, and an associated misuse tax as a compliance measure for incorrect claims. I don't have a problem with this, in the sense that this is a policy to give incentives and tax incentives for people to build houses that are then going to be rented out. You could say, 'Well, that's good.' I'm not saying that's bad. What I'm saying is, 'Why are we limiting this, and why is this a rent-only policy?' What I read into this is that this government is not interested in people who would like to build and/or buy their own home as owner-occupiers; it is only looking to assist people who are happy to build places to be rented out.</para>
<para>Again, the way this is designed is really for big investors. This is about corporate funds or industry super funds that would then look to invest heavily in this market to then rent those places out. You might say, 'Well, why would Labor only be interested in helping those like industry super funds invest in housing so that they can rent these houses out, but not in helping people who want to be owner-occupiers get these same types of advantages?' Do you know what the answer is? The answer is: it's because the people who run those industry super funds are the unions. What the Labor government is doing here is setting up a vehicle and an incentive to make it easier for the industry super funds. I don't have a problem with industry super funds and the role that they play for people's retirement. But, again, what this shows is that the industry super funds—which are basically run by the union movement and, as we know, the Labor Party is also run by the union movement—have come up with a scheme and said: 'Well, we want to get our industry super funds into home ownership. Let's set up a scheme that makes it easier, so we have incentives to do that, and then we'll build them and rent them out.'</para>
<para>You might say that's okay. You might say that's not okay. But for those people who say it is okay, I would say, 'This is selling out the Australian public who want to be owner-occupiers.' That's what this is doing. This is ignoring mums and dads out there or people who may be single who want to buy and invest in their own home. This does nothing for them.</para>
<para>Why have they designed a scheme like that? I highlight that, again, this is the industry super funds, run by the union movement, and the Labor Party, run by the union movement, coming up with a scheme that is good for the industry super funds, which are the unions, which are run by the Labor Party. There's a whole little circle here as to why this is focused solely on that.</para>
<para>On the housing issue more broadly: the member for Fisher, who spoke earlier, raised some very good points. With all due respect to the government, we have some huge issues with housing. Deputy Speaker, I'm sure it's the same in your community. We've had, I think, 800,000 people come to Australia under this government in the last 12 months. Again, I like migration. I don't mind. We've been a country that's been built on migration for a long time, and I think it's been a great thing for our country. But this government has allowed so many people to come in so quickly that we haven't had the infrastructure and the housing built to maintain that. That's been a huge issue that this government has contributed to.</para>
<para>To point the finger at someone other than the current government, as an opposition member, I'd also raise another point here, and I'd like to put it on the record. As to the housing shortage, this government, through its migration program, brought in many people, without having a plan to build more houses or incentives for people to build more houses. While that is a problem, I'd also point the finger very squarely at the two other levels of government: state and local government.</para>
<para>I find that, across the country, the big problem for housing, for us, is local government. Every house and every apartment that you want to build in this country has to go through a local government DA approval process.</para>
<para>I can speak of my own patch. I have a housing development that's 2,000 or 3,000 houses on a beautiful hill overlooking Lismore. Do you know how long that's been on the books, Deputy Speaker? I know you can't say anything, but, if you said to me, 'Ten years,' I would say, 'No—more,' and you'd go, 'No!' and then if you said, 'Twenty years,' I'd say, 'Deputy Speaker, no, it's more,' and if you said, 'Thirty years,' I'd say, 'Yes. Right on it.' That approval, to get those 2,000 or 3,000 houses, has been on the books of the local council for 30 years. This is outrageous! The green tape and red tape around this proposal has held it up. It's been referred to state planning. It's come back from state planning. There's been another process because people don't want it to be built. The local council itself—a Labor-Greens council—at the start didn't want to approve it anyway and didn't want more homes for families. Work that out! That dragged on for years and then suddenly they changed their mind.</para>
<para>I think you could almost say it, I agree with the Prime Minister. He had a go at the Greens crossbench one day and said that he didn't know of any housing approval in his electorate that he's ever seen a Greens local council member vote for! I could say the same. I don't think I've seen a Greens member of my local councils—and I've got six of them within my electorate—who's said, 'Yes, I vote to approve that development proposal to go through.'</para>
<para>And what, we've got a problem with lack of housing. Yes! This whole NIMBYism has to be called out. You can't have someone who lives in the country who thinks, 'When you build my house, that's good, but once you've built my house I don't want one built next door in the paddock! I like looking at the cows, so let's not build anymore, because you've just built mine.' That obviously isn't sustainable for our country and for our communities. Obviously, in the city—I don't live in a city—you can't say, 'I'll build a high-rise but don't build a high-rise next to me.' This whole NIMBY attitude that once I'm here nothing can happen around me is not sustainable for our country, and it's a big problem.</para>
<para>Anyway, moving on from housing, the next thing I would like to talk to is schedule 7. While I'm not opposed to this, I think the government should be doing more. Schedule 7 extends the instant asset write-off at an asset cap of $20,000 for the 2024-25 financial year. Deputy Speaker, you've been a member of this chamber for a long time—and I congratulate you on being here for such a long time—and you've seen a lot of things happen. The one thing that I think we'll all remember—I was here for the period—were the COVID lockdowns. I think we all went into the COVID lockdowns thinking, 'How is this going to work? We're all going to send everyone home, we're not going to work, what's it going to do to businesses, and how's this all going to roll out?' There were obviously a lot of things we, as the previous government, did. There was the job payment, and when everybody started going back to work and we were trying to keep things together, we did something else.</para>
<para>We'd already instituted the instant asset tax write-off earlier and we had it at $20,000 and we'd increased the size of businesses that could apply for it. Almost the day that we implemented this as a policy in the previous government, I had businesses around my electorate saying, 'Kevin, this is a really good policy. This is a really good incentive for us.' Then what happened during COVID was—and I think this was the game changer—we made it unlimited. There were businesses that were making significant capital investments and being able to have an instant asset tax write-off for it. You had things like people buying big machinery worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and the order books just started to fill up. The incentive that gave to invest in this country was a very big life changer. Without exception, travelling the country at the time as an assistant minister, people were telling me, 'Kevin, this is the thing that has saved my business.' JobKeeper was great. JobKeeper was essential, but post JobKeeper when everybody started to say, 'We're allowed to come back to work,' with limited things they could or could not do, the instant tax write off was it.</para>
<para>We have put an amendment to this. We think the instant asset tax write-off should be higher. We've indicated that we would make it $30,000. I think, and some other speakers have made the claim too, that this needs to be a permanent fixture within what we do, because—Deputy Speaker, you'd know this—as a country we succeed. We make money in this country and that's a good thing. I don't see making money, increasing your income as a family, making money as a small business, making money as a big business or making money as a country as a bad thing. That is a good thing because the more money we make as a government and the more money we generate as a government the more money we have to spend on social services and government services.</para>
<para>What are the four or five things that we make our money from in this country? We make money out of coal, we make money out of iron ore, we make money out of gas and we make money out of farming. They are the four biggest exports in this country.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Spender</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about higher education.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Higher education isn't in the fourth biggest.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Spender</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's No. 4 actually.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was. In fact at one stage it was No. 2, but it's still recovering.</para>
<para>So they are a big export industry. All those industries ran off the tax. To have those industries succeed and remain competitive, you need a couple of things. We used to have low energy costs in this country. The lower taxes you can have helped that as well. We historically have had low energy; we don't anymore. Our company taxes are lower than they used to be. The company tax rate used to be over 50 per cent; it's now around the 25 to 30 per cent, depending on the size of the business, so they're a lot lower, but we certainly aren't as low as a lot of other countries. There are countries that we compete with around the world that have a company tax rate of 20 per cent, and some are as low as 15 per cent. We're not supercompetitive there, but we have to help make sure that our industries—because we want all those industries to make money. Those industries all pay a lot of tax. Those industries all pay a lot of people. They employ people, and those people pay pay-as-you-earn tax. A lot of the mining-type companies pay royalties. So we need them to remain competitive.</para>
<para>The $30,000 is obviously a very minor thing for those bigger companies, but anything we can do to make us a lower-cost country is a good thing. We won't talk about energy today, but certainly we need to maintain whatever energy cost price advantage we can. I support the fact that the government is extending this, but again I would encourage the government to increase the rate of this and always to look for our country's financial sustainability. We talk about sustainability in a lot of things, but to keep our companies sustainable, to keep income and the revenue this government connects sustainable, any lower taxes and tax write-offs we can give are a good thing.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Finding somewhere affordable to rent in Australia is near impossible. Nightly news bulletins across Australia filled with footage of rental inspections queued out of the doors and cities and regions are like. Data from CoreLogic shows that rents have increased by 8.5 per cent since last year alone and 33 per cent since 2021. Meanwhile, wages are rising at just over four per cent a year. In March 2024, PropTrack found that less than 40 per cent of advertised rentals were affordable for typical-income household.</para>
<para>The rental market is sometimes forgotten in the debate on housing affordability, with reports instead focusing on homeownership, but the reality is that a functional and affordable rental market is important for job movers, students and young people, temporary migrants and many more, including older women. This is not to mention that a high cost of renting pushes back homeownership for those who aspire to own their own homes. It also adds pressure to our inadequate public and social housing system. The most recent national data we have, from 2022, shows that 175,000 people are on the waitlist for social housing—a number that has undoubtably worsened as the private market has increased in price. To their credit, the government has introduced several policies that aim to use what levers the federal government has in the space. I supported measures such as the HAFF as I have supported measures to increase Commonwealth rent assistance, while noting that the increase did not go far enough.</para>
<para>The build-to-rent sector is a small-but-growing part of the Australian housing supply. EY have previously estimated that build-to-rent represents only about 0.2 per cent of the value of housing stock. This is compared to five per cent in the United Kingdom and 12 per cent in the US. Estimates suggest that it could grow to around three per cent of housing, with an additional 180,000 dwellings by 2028. At this point in our housing market, all options need to be on the table. This bill will increase the capital works reduction from four per cent to 2.5 per cent and reduce the final withholding tax on managed investment trusts from 30 per cent to 15 per cent for eligible build-to-rent developments. According to Hamilton Locke, this would bring withholding tax in line with commercial property as well as reduce the depreciation period by half. However, these conditions are subject to build-to-rent conditions, including a requirement for 10 per cent of homes to be available as affordable.</para>
<para>This bill is important, and I support the action taken, although I am cautious about an early celebration. The measures included need to form part of a package that makes the development and construction of housing in Australia more viable to investors. Tax settings alone will not lift our housing approvals and completion numbers that sit at record lows. We need to find ways to free up capacity in the broader construction sector to lower the input costs of development. According to the ABS, construction costs are actually up by 30 per cent on 2019 values. The Property Council has also warned that these measures to bring build-to-rent investments in line with other types of property are undermined by the mandated provision of affordable housing. Acknowledging the need for more affordable housing, the Property Council have advocated for a differentiated withholding tax of 10 per cent for affordable housing investment or for other forms of additional incentives to be applied.</para>
<para>This also highlights a current issue we have with the inconsistent definitions of affordable housing. In New South Wales, for example, affordable housing is defined as housing not requiring more than 30 per cent of income, which is often incongruous with how affordable rents are set based on a 20 to 25 per cent discount off the market rate. Even with this discount, supposedly affordable housing in my electorate of Wentworth is still well above what a low-income household could afford.</para>
<para>While I acknowledge the concerns of the Property Council and others, I am hesitant to vote against a bill that seeks to add to housing supply, as I'm hesitant to move amendments to adjust the investment attractiveness of BTR by removing provisions for affordable housing. I understand that a delicate balance needs to be struck between the provision of affordable housing and investment attractiveness, and I also understand that affordable housing does not work for every development proposal. But ultimately, with vacancies and housing approvals at their current levels, I'm not assured that the market will accommodate the needs of all renters under the current conditions. The government will, however, need to monitor the settings in this bill and adjust accordingly if the desired outcomes are not met.</para>
<para>Secondly, I'd like to talk about another key component of the bill: small business and, in particular, the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses. I strongly support the measure, just as I was supportive of the same measure put forward last year that is still yet to pass this parliament. Small businesses are doing it tough, and I speak to many of these in my electorate and have very strong memories of running a number of smaller businesses myself and of the real struggles, to be honest, during periods of economic downturn and uncertainty, as you try to make sure that you can continue to provide employment for those that you employ but still try to meet the needs of your customers, which can vary, particularly in situations where there is economic uncertainty. You can see, in the numbers, the difficulties for small businesses. According to ASIC, the number of insolvencies has increased by 36.2 per cent since March last year. That is a huge rise. Measures such as this $20,000 instant asset write-off provide much-needed support to small business in hard times by making it easier for businesses to acquire or upgrade assets essential to their businesses, like a new car, a coffee machine or other infrastructure that they need.</para>
<para>But, when government makes promises in budgets that it's not able to meet, the business community loses faith, and I think that this, in the last budget, has been a really terrible example. I have been speaking to small-business owners recently who, until the past week, were unsure if the measures in the budget from last year would be passed in this financial year. It's 26 June today, and in the last month there was much uncertainty about whether these measures would be passed in this financial year. So people who listened to the budget announcement last year and said, 'Oh, great, I've got the instant asset write-off,' may have gone out there and purchased an asset, expecting to write it off—but not following the machinations of parliament, not realising that the legislation wasn't actually passed—and they're now dealing with that uncertainty.</para>
<para>Even if the legislation passes this week, the ABC reports that for many it will be too late to make the necessary purchase before the deadline. I think this is so wasteful, frankly, at a time of economic uncertainty and at a time when small businesses are doing it so hard, to not be able to deliver the outcomes that small businesses are expecting, relying on and taking the government's word on. I'm pleased to see that a deal has finally been struck to pass the previous year's bill, but the inability to do this before—they're literally sneaking it in before 30 June—really undermines the business community's confidence in government. I think the government must do better in this space. We must support our small businesses and give them much more certainty in their dealings with government so that they can feel certain that, when the government says that they're going to do something to support small business, it actually eventuates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Looking at this piece of legislation, I'm reminded of this phrase: it's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Churchill.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Correct. Winston Churchill used this phrase in October 1939, and he was trying to describe a situation that was difficult to comprehend. That's where I find myself. 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 are not that difficult to comprehend individually, but why they are proposed together in the same bill is incomprehensible. That is the riddle.</para>
<para>It's a bit of a pattern for the Albanese government. I find it a source of frustration that bills with only a passing acquaintance are all presented as inseparable in the same piece of legislation. Some call it 'omnibus'. I think the reason for this is obvious—wrap up a bit of bad legislation in a bundle of good measures and tie a pretty bow around it. The strategy is that, in order to pass the good, the bad will be accepted as part of that package. Or, to put it another way, to vote against the bad would also be a vote against the good.</para>
<para>I am someone who comes to this place willing to support good legislation but happy to debate the bad and, if necessary, vote against the bad. There's been a bit of bad in this term of government, I'd have to say, from my electorate's perspective. I vote against it. The legislative strategy is incomprehensible, and it's really hard to tolerate. Politics may be the art of compromise, but it shouldn't be reduced to having to choose the lesser evil. A bad idea is a bad idea, and bad legislation is bad legislation. That's my frustration with pulling all these unrelated pieces of regulation together in the one bill.</para>
<para>When it comes to buy-now pay-later, historically, there is a problem in my electorate with vulnerable communities being targeted with rent to own for common household items, like refrigerators and televisions. In some places, there's a lack of financial literacy, and this can be exploited. People sign up to pay thousands of dollars more for the item, and they're often targeted again toward the end of the contract to sign up for a new replacement and thousands more dollars. Buy-now pay-later has in many ways superseded that rent-to-own concept. I get that both of them have pros and cons and that both require regulation and consumer safeguards. That is what this bill does for buy-now pay-later.</para>
<para>I'm made aware that the buy-now pay-later sector has over five million Australian customers. Buy-now pay-later had near-universal consumer awareness in the RBA's 2022 consumer payments survey. The majority of people who told the RBA that they had used buy-now pay-later services in the previous 12 months were aged between 18 and 39 in the 2019 survey, but by 2022 the use had more than doubled for those aged 50 and over. So age seems to be no barrier to what consumers accept is a convenient and cost-effective way of making a purchase.</para>
<para>This bill imposes new regulation on buy-now pay-later providers, such as Afterpay and Zip. These reforms are supported in principle. Indeed, the industry sector is broadly supportive of these reforms, but the coalition remains concerned about significant delays in drafting this legislation and failures to address concerns raised by buy-now pay-later providers. These products play an important role in helping people manage their finances and smooth out expenses, and it's an alternative to high-cost forms of credit, like payday loans and credit cards, but it would have been good to see some measures in this bill about promoting the financial literacy of consumers. I think that's something we should all aspire towards.</para>
<para>Another part of this seven-schedule omnibus bill is the build-to-rent misuse tax. The build-to-rent misuse tax will create generous tax incentives for institutional investors to develop build-to-rent housing, BTR. This is part of what the Albanese government wants to do to add rental supply through the reforms in the 2023 budget, announced more than 12 months ago.</para>
<para>The legislation has faced delays, but it's also faced criticism during consultation from the sector it is intending to support. Labor seems to be prioritising corporate homeownership over individual homeownership. This is a corporate housing policy which will create a generation of renters. I still believe that in my electorate you can come and find places where young people can still save for a deposit and still buy their own home. It's one of the great advantages of living in regional Australia.</para>
<para>When it comes to the instant asset write-off, the coalition's position, as outlined in the budget in reply, is to extend the value of assets eligible instant asset write-off to $30,000, allowing businesses to claim accelerated depreciation on a wider range of assets. Our position would simplify depreciation for millions of small businesses just by cutting that red tape, boosting investment in productive assets and lowering business costs and prices. Every decision we make in this place should be about how easy is it to do business, how easy is it just to start a business and how easy is it to run a business? A lot of people on our side, and some people on the other side, have been involved in private enterprise, and that's what I was involved in for the entire time before I came into this place. I have huge admiration for people who are prepared to take a risk on their capital, combine it with labour and the creativity and cleverness of the people they employ and create something.</para>
<para>In my part of the world that creation is often fruit products that I hope people in this place enjoy, and everyone's welcome to come to my office for the Australia-China blind tasting of peaches—open invitation to everyone!</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome that. SPC is the business that has been processing that Australian fruit in my electorate for so long. It's a very special part of my electorate. My grandparents worked there. Everyone in Shepparton has got a story about being out on the farms, picking the fruit, working on an orchard, working in the factory during their holidays or knows someone who worked in that place. I want to see that business continue to be competitive, and I think it's really important for Australia that we do that. What we want to do is make it easier for them to do business and to prosper in that business.</para>
<para>Labor's proposal will limit the instant asset write-off to $20,000. If Labor supported our amendments then 26,500 businesses with an aggregated turnover of up to $50 million would have been eligible to use the instant asset write-off. The increased asset of $30,000 would have allowed businesses to claim accelerated depreciation on a wider range of assets. When it's getting really hard, when inputs are increasing, labour costs are increasing, regulation is increasing—too much, in my opinion—anything we can do to help those businesses with that bottom line is so important. I think all of this would have come at a modest cost to the budget, and we would have seen it returned in spades by the increased profitability, productivity and sustainability of these really important Australian businesses.</para>
<para>The passage of this bill will give certainty to business, but it is not a win for small businesses struggling under cost-of-living pressures from this government. I think it's bad economic policy for difficult times. There are a number of other elements, including country-by-country tax, reporting, payments to states associated with the October 2023 National Skills Agreement, budget measures, the list of entities as deductible gift recipients—there's so much in this bill that I don't think belongs in the same bill, and that's a bit of a cause of frustration. It's not the first time I've spoken on this issue. Maybe people might call me new and naive, but I think splitting up these bills so that we can debate each regulation, if you like, and each law on its merits is a better way, rather than throwing everything together and forcing us to vote against something because we have to weigh up how much we don't like some of it compared to how much we do like other parts of it. It is a frustration.</para>
<para>As I have said, some of the elements are uncontroversial and some are worthy of support, like the instant asset write-off—which is good but should go further—and some should be opposed. I think the build-to-rent tax incentives ought to be removed from the bill and considered separately. So it's a frustrating one, because I think there's a lot of good stuff in here, but it's very difficult to support.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I start by thanking all the honourable members for their contribution and participation in the debate 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. I note the contribution made by the honourable member from Nicholls, who preceded me. He made the point that has been made many times in this House over the 15 years that I've been here—about the same time as you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie—that, with omnibus bills like these, you'll find stuff in there that you like and stuff in there that you don't. If we debated them all separately, we'd be spending more than 365 days a year in parliament. I'm sure the member for Nicholls is as keen as I am to get back to his electorate and deal with the other stuff that is pressing upon members of this place. We try to deal with debates in the House efficiently by putting all of the Treasury portfolio measures within the same bills. There is nothing novel about this approach.</para>
<para>The bills before the House deal with, as the titles suggest, regulation of buy-now pay-later, an important piece of credit market reform. It follows on from other work that we've done in the two short years that we've been in government in regulating credit markets—small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases. We introduced a raft of reforms late last year to lift the bar and regulate those credit markets. Buy-now pay-later is an outlier. If anybody walked into a shop, they would see, at most retail outlets, that you can pay by Mastercard, you can pay by Visa and you can pay by Afterpay or Zip. The simple fact of the matter is they all operate like credit but are not currently regulated in the same way.</para>
<para>The objective of these bills is to ensure that there is a base of regulation that treats them all as consumer credit and regulates them all under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. We're not trying to drive square pegs into round holes. There are differences and variations in some of these products. The small-amount credits, which are available under these products, are regulated slightly differently, but the overall obligations are similar. Scaling to risk is the essence of this, ensuring that we are imposing greater obligations for greater risk and greater potential harm.</para>
<para>Although I'm enjoying the fact that the majority of members who have participated in this debate support these reforms, some are overreaching in suggesting that their side of politics was either interested or did some stuff in this area, when the simple fact of the matter is that it wasn't until this government brought these matters before the House that any action was seen on them. There have been some contributions, although minor, around the tax transparency stuff, which my colleague the assistant minister for the Treasury, Andrew Leigh, has been working on and which uplifts and puts Australia, if not at the top, near the top of the world in the area of requiring multinational corporations which operate in Australia and elsewhere to provide country-by-country tax transparency reporting. It matters for a whole bunch of reasons—not least of which is other areas of government decision-making.</para>
<para>I want to stress, as I have had representations from some other countries, that what we're attempting to do here is not single out a country but definitely single out the behaviours of certain companies who may not be doing the right thing by this jurisdiction. That is our concern—to ensure that people are paying the correct and fair share of tax in our jurisdiction. I'm pleased to see that, eventually, the coalition have come onboard with the instant asset write-off. Not before time, this week we have seen the measures that were introduced in the budget before last pass through the Senate. That delay created enormous uncertainty for small businesses, who have perhaps delayed making purchases because they were uncertain about whether there would be access to this $20,000 instant asset write-off. It is good news for them that there is now certainty in relation to the 2023-24 tax year, but this measure extends those provisions to the 2024-25 tax year. I just say to those on the other side of the chamber: can we get behind this? You say you're for small business. Can we provide them with some certainty by ensuring this has swift passage through the other place?</para>
<para>Finally, a lot of heat and words have been exchanged over the build-to-rent measures. I note that once again the member for Griffith is encouraging this chamber to entertain unconstitutional measures by requiring the Commonwealth government to introduce rent freezes. He knows full well—or he should by now; he has been banging on about this for two years—that we can't do that. It's good for TikTok, but it's not good for the credibility of this place for us to be calling for these things. The simple fact is that we need a lot of measures to deal with the housing issues. I don't pretend for one moment that the build-to-rent measures that we've included within this bill are the solution overall to all of the housing pressures. But proving up an asset class and ensuring that there is more rental accommodation in our cities, which are short on all forms of accommodation, including rental accommodation, is a part of the solution, and that's why we put it forward in this bill.</para>
<para>With all of those comments made, I thank the members once again for the lively debate around this bill. We won't be supporting either the second reading amendment or the foreshadowed substantive amendments. We commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Petrie moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Griffith has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>168</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7198" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>168</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 this bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>168</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7204" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>168</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my pleasure to speak about the next phase of Labor's implementation of Revive, which is the new Australian National Cultural Policy. I love the word 'reviver' in this context. Not only is it a palindrome; it means something that re-energises, restrengthens and revitalises, and it is what our arts sector deserves.</para>
<para>To say that Australian artist, performers, writers and musicians have had a tough time over the last decade is an understatement. First there were the bleak years of cuts, mismanagement, policy neglect and confusion when the opposition was in government. The undoubted lowlight of this was the cutting of $104 million of funding in the 2015 budget under Tony Abbott and George Brandis, the arts minister. As one of my constituents, a published novelist, said of the cuts, 'They not only damaged the amount of work that could be produced, but to be so little valued at a government level was a shocking attack on morale.'</para>
<para>Then came the pandemic, which had a devastating impact on the arts and on anything that basically required public attendance. We all remember the rolling lockdowns, the health directives and the social distancing restrictions that constrained so much of cultural life, particularly live music. In many cases it shut down artists totally. And with that, of course, came significant consequences such as reduced and unreliable incomes and, flowing on from that, job losses for many of those involved in the arts sector.</para>
<para>Revive was launched by the Prime Minister, who we know is a great lover of the arts. I know he's a great lover of the arts because I've been to see Billy Bragg with him two times in Brisbane and once in Canberra. In fact, he even introduced me to Billy Bragg, which was one of my political highlights. The Prime Minister did that launch in January 2023.</para>
<para>Revive has been enthusiastically welcomed by so many. It is a five-year plan to revitalise Australia's arts sector. Revive supports our creative Australians whether they're artists, contemporary dancers, poets, playwrights, singers, theatre directors or back-of-house people. Revive recognises and celebrates Australian stories, Australian culture and Australian heritage.</para>
<para>The key themes, or pillars, behind Revive articulate what this looks like. It's about recognition and respect for the place of First Nation stories at the centre of our cultural life. How proud are we to have the oldest words on earth at the heart of our culture! This confirms that there is a place for every story. In fact I came up here from a Google event where I was talking to the Mechanics, who have a couple of million hits on YouTube. They create content out on the bush at Arnhem Land, and it's going all around the world. Kids love it. It's incredible. When we tell our stories the world will listen. So there is a place for every story reflecting and valuing the immense diversity that is Australian 2024. It puts the artist at the centre, supporting and celebrating their work, and it also channels to the infrastructure and institutions around them.</para>
<para>Finally, Revive recognises the importance of connecting with audiences both here and around the world. It's good for diplomacy, good for trade and good for safety in our region when we tell those Australian stories and they're heard by our neighbours, all things that we need while maintaining control over our part of the earth—which is11 per cent of the earth's surface. It's a difficult job so we need to have good friends and good connections with our neighbours.</para>
<para>Revive also outlined 10 core principles and I want to highlight a couple. The first of these is the development of long-term and sustainable career pathways for creatives and arts workers, and the second is that these pathways will be supported by fair renumeration, industry standards and safe and inclusive workplaces. My philosophy is always that the artist must be paid. People say, 'Can I have that for free?' Remember the artist should always be paid. Try to use a service, read a book, see an artwork—whatever rewards the artist.</para>
<para>These measures will assist in providing stability and clarity to the people in the arts sector who did it tough during the pandemic. Labor has made substantial progress with Revive since January last year. Creative Australia, the overarching body for the arts—some might have known it formerly as the Australia Council—was launched in August last year. We then established Music Australia to support the contemporary music industry—perhaps reflecting Minister Burke and the Prime Minister's interest in music—including supporting contemporary music and creative workplaces which focus on workplace safeguards and best practices.</para>
<para>The Creative Australia Implementation of Revive Bill will deliver the final two pieces of the puzzle, with First Nations Arts and Writing Australia, which I'm particularly passionate about. The Albanese Labor government strongly values the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's cultural life. For 65,000 years, this land has echoed with the stories, music, art and dance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As many Australians know, the oldest art on earth is First Nations art. Imagine that—we're connected with the first artists on this planet. First Nations Arts will commence in 2024, and it will be a dedicated new body to support and promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts. The body will have the autonomy to control the allocation of its investments. In keeping with the principles of Creative Australia, this will be First Nations led and overseen by a board of 10 members, all expert First Nations people. The board's remit entails promoting best practice in cultural protocols, providing financial assistance to support arts practice and reporting to the Creative Australia board.</para>
<para>The establishment of First Nations Arts builds on the substantial work already undertaken by Revive. This includes the Australian action plan for the International Decade of Indigenous Languages and the provision of continued support for First Nations people to express and promote their culture through language and the arts. Just as an aside, having been in this parliament for nearly 17 years, one of the policies that I'm most proud of is that schools around the country can now access support to pay for someone to teach a First Nations language in their schools, whether it be in Tasmania, Hobart, the Top End, Cairns or wherever. That's one of my proudest achievements—that we're able to turn a policy from opposition into a reality in government.</para>
<para>We also continue to advocate for the unconditional return of First Nations ancestors and priceless cultural heritage artefacts held both domestically and internationally. The establishment of First Nations Arts builds on the substantial work undertaken already by Revive, as I said, and it's particularly important for the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. How good would it be to have Australia helping to lead that process, with our First Nations ambassador going around the world telling that story?</para>
<para>This bill also establishes Writing Australia, a new body to support and promote Australian literature. I am all for this—not just because I was an English teacher for 11 years but also because I've published three fiction books and I've co-authored one biography with my good friend Wayne Long, which is currently out. So writing is a subject close to my heart, and it's something that I try to do every single day, apart from when I'm in Canberra. Writers have wholeheartedly welcomed the establishment of this dedicated funding body, with one saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It acknowledges how central writing is for other pieces of creative work—all of which inspire the conversations about who we are as a country.</para></quote>
<para>Writing Australia will start on 1 July next year, and it will be responsible for supporting authors, illustrators and publishers to create new work. The key word here is 'create'. My conversations with writers in Brisbane's vibrant literary community indicate that financially supporting themselves to write is, as one of them said, 'a tough gig at the best of times'. I can personally attest to that, as someone who's sat around in bookstores trying to sell one's books. I'm glad I've got a day job outside of publishing. But I will be at New Farm this Saturday from 10 till one trying to—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Brian Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on special.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take that interjection—it might sell more if it were on special!</para>
<para>Having support to do the work will have such a positive impact. It is also recognition for the hours and hours of work that go into that glossy book that you pick out at the bookshop, download on your Kindle or select to listen to as an audiobook. I'm particularly excited by the opportunities that Writing Australia will provide for emerging writers and writers from diverse backgrounds who have important stories to share as our society changes and grows. Writing Australia will also establish a national poet laureate. This is something that I actually mentioned in my first speech, way back in February 2008—about trying to bring more poetry back to the parliament but also to the Australian people. That's been 16 years in the making. It's good to see that Minister Burke is making it a reality.</para>
<para>There is a clear need to support the sector as a whole. Australia Reads tells us that national reading rates are falling. A recent study showed that 25 per cent of Australians did not read a single book over the course of a year. New technologies are also changing the landscape. Writing Australia will promote Australian literature while applying innovative approaches to funding models tapping into the commercial sector. As I mentioned, a lot of people now are listening to books, which is another way to access good writing. It will invest in a network of key organisations and develop sector initiatives at a national level. All of this will lead to increasing markets both at home and abroad. We want Writing Australia to become a hub for writers, illustrators and publishers so that they can be front of mind during policy development and all benefit from these partnerships.</para>
<para>Despite the current challenges and the recovery from funding cuts, the Australian literary community is vibrant and bursting with stories to tell. It is supported by extraordinary initiatives such as AustLit, the definitive biographical and bibliographical database of Australian literature. I'm not just talking about AustLit because I'm the only member of parliament to have an AustLit record for fiction, or so I'm reliably informed by my constituent who helps run AustLit! But I am bringing it to the attention of members here because it is part of the cultural infrastructure that Revive champions. One of the 10 principles of Revive is the restoration, building and maintenance of digital collections. AustLit also proudly contains BlackWords, a comprehensive record of First Nations storytelling—the primary pillar of Revive.</para>
<para>AustLit is a fully digitised, not-for-profit collaboration amongst researchers and librarians. It's housed at the University of Queensland, in the electorate of Ryan, just over the river from my electorate. It began in the 1970s as a card catalogue and was officially launched as a telnet service by former prime minister Gough Whitlam in 1988, back when this building was opened. In 2024 it is rightly recognised as a central resource in Australia's national digital creative, literary and research infrastructure. We can all be proud of AustLit. No other country has attempted to compile a comprehensive national record of every work of creative writing and its associated criticism and reviews. This remarkable living database adds to its one million-plus entries daily. It also covers film and television, popular theatre history and awards and festivals—all significant aspects of Australia's cultural history. It is a national treasure.</para>
<para>The establishment of Writing Australia will bolster the next generation of well-supported writers, illustrators, publishers and First Nations storytellers. Their records will find a home in AustLit. These, in turn, will nurture knowledgeable audiences, as well as foster creative and research projects both in Australia and internationally. Perhaps most importantly it will enable AustLit to build on its long history of creating new ways of understanding who we are and how this understanding has changed over time. As more diverse voices tell their stories, this understanding will continue to evolve and flourish.</para>
<para>This bill continues the proud Labor tradition of supporting and valuing the arts and showcases the Albanese Labor government's steadfast commitment to the arts. I particularly commend Minister Burke for his great work in this area. The establishment of First Nations Arts and Writing Australia will foster work that creates shared experiences and human connections. It will add to the rich catalogue of creative work that tells the story of our country. It helps us to understand it, to understand ourselves and to further strengthen our national identity. A writer friend told me, 'We tell stories to make sense of who we are.' I'm proud to support this bill for the contributions its institutions will make to our combined national story. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>About this time last year parliament passed the Creative Australia Bill, which established Music Australia and Creative Workplaces. It was the first legislative step in implementing the new national cultural policy, Revive. Today we're debating the establishment of two new parts of Creative Australia: First Nations Arts and Writing Australia. At the outset, I want to make clear that I'm supportive of the Revive policy and I commend the government for its efforts in setting out a clear plan to encourage the Australian arts, entertainment and cultural sector to grow and thrive.</para>
<para>I'm fully supportive of this bill, the Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024, particularly the attention on recognising and respecting the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture. It's so important that we amplify the stories of First Nations people. For millennia, First Nations history, educational stories and stories of country, creation and tradition have been passed down through generation after generation. Today, the practice of storytelling sustains communities, validates experiences, nurtures relationships and serves as a form of important cultural continuation for Indigenous peoples.</para>
<para>I'm grateful to take this opportunity to talk about a First Nations theatre group in my electorate. It's a group the Minister for the Arts knows well, and we were happy to have him recently in Curtin to visit the group. Based in Subiaco, Yirra Yaakin, which means 'stand tall' in Noongar, is Australia's biggest Aboriginal-led theatre company. It was established in 1993 with a successful funding application, three staff members and the aim to provide the Aboriginal community with an artistic outlet for positive self-determination. Since then, Yirra Yaakin Theatre Company has evolved into a respected cultural leader and artistic hub for Aboriginal people from all over WA, Australia and around the world. Yirra Yaakin's education and community engagement programs support Indigenous trainees to be mentored, to develop skills and to work in the Australian theatre sector. Each year, they present youth-focused productions, undertake residencies and conduct workshops across the state. They tour locally and regionally, providing unique cultural experiences to some of the most remote communities in the world. Last week, I was told about Yirra Yaakin's work with education by distance—making sure kids studying in the most remote areas still have access to First Nations theatre and education. And I know that a number of people from Yirra Yaakin have been involved in consultations on this bill.</para>
<para>The bill establishes the First Nations Board. The board has a number of functions, including to support and invest in a diverse range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice, to promote best practice in First Nations cultural protocols in the arts and to provide financial assistance to support these functions.</para>
<para>While the bill must be commended, I do want to mention two concerns raised with me. Both are in relation to the board's role in providing financial assistance. First, there's a need for a Western Australian voice on the advisory board, and, secondly, the board will need to consider the tyranny of distance for Western Australian artists to travel and tour. The bill, as drafted, gives the minister discretion, with consultation with the co-chairs, to appoint First Nations Board members. The minister must be satisfied that the person is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person and has appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience. This is appropriate. But I think consideration of the geographical or regional composition of the First Nations Board should also be required, to ensure the board is representative of all states and territories. This would alleviate the concern I've heard, that the board might become east-coast-centric. While the government is not willing to amend the legislation to require this, I have spoken to the minister, who's given me an assurance that there will be Western Australian representation on this board.</para>
<para>The second concern is linked to the need for full geographic representation—that we need to ensure that the different needs of each state are considered in the awarding of grants. In WA, Yirra Yaakin and others travel extreme distances to tour their shows and productions. The cost of touring in WA is much higher than it is in New South Wales or Victoria. I'd like to see this recognised in how grants are awarded to recipients.</para>
<para>I also want to make some comments in support of the establishment of Writing Australia. Olivia Lanchester, CEO of the Australian Society of Authors, pointed out to me that there were 152 submissions to the cultural policy public consultation process advocating for the literature sector. Funding for literature declined by 40 per cent over the last decade, with only 2.4 per cent of the total 2021 Australian Council arts investment spent on literature—the lowest amount of any of the major art forms. Many of Australia's most loved authors provided their thoughts on what's needed for literature to flourish in Australia. The<inline font-style="italic"> Washington Post</inline> described Australian author Richard Flanagan as one of our greatest living novelists. Richard Flanagan's submission said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No other developed country of which I am aware provides so little in the way of support or recognition or has a state that treats its writers as poorly as Australia.</para></quote>
<para>Literature has fallen through the gap between the arts and commercial activity. The general public thinks that authors get paid well by their publishers, but making a living as a writer in Australia is very challenging. Charlotte Wood, described by the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> as one of our most original and provocative writers, pointed out that 'experienced, prize-winning and highly respected writers are routinely paid advances of under $15,000 for a book that may have taken five years to write.' Macquarie University research shows the average income from practising as an author is only $18,200 per year. Emily Rodda, whose books my kids have loved, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">'For a long time, we've taken our literature for granted. To a certain extent, we've taken a literate population for granted. But if we value literacy, imagination, logical thinking and empathy—if we believe these things don't just enrich individual lives but enrich every human pursuit from science to social work, and promote a tolerant, caring, inventive society—then for the sake of the future we'll urgently put literature—books and reading—back on the agenda.'</para></quote>
<para>I have wonderful memories of discovering a world of stories in high school thanks to my memorable English teacher, Mr Lloyd, who opened my eyes to the power of literature. The literature kids read must include Australian stories. Writing Australia represents an opportunity for national vision for literature. It will develop national industry initiatives and domestic and export opportunities for Australian stories and is welcomed by stakeholders. With only $19.3 million committed to Writing Australia over four years, it's a modest investment, but it is at least a start. Hopefully, it will provide an overall direction and a more cohesive plan than the ad hoc and uncoordinated funding provided by federal and state governments to literature in the past.</para>
<para>Telling our unique Australian stories is so important—both First Nations stories, historical and current, and the stories of all Australians. They remind us who we are, challenge us to be better, make us listen and understand each other and help us form our collective Australian identity. Establishing a clear role for our art forms provides greater certainty and cements a place in our communities for the many people who passionately contribute to telling our evolving Australian story. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In May last year, I stood here to give my speech introducing Revive and reintroducing Australia's national cultural policy. I spoke of Labor's history, our commitment to the growth of our creative industries and how economically and culturally important it was to us on this side of the House and how important it was to our national identity. In that speech, I mentioned some of the key players of Labor governments of the past who helped build Australia's cultural policy into what we are building today.</para>
<para>One of those people was the late Simon Crean, who we lost at this time last year, give or take a day, at the age of 74. Simon was Labor leader from 2001 to 2003 and Minister for the Arts from 2010 to 2013 under Prime Minister Gillard, where he made a significant contribution to what is now known as Revive. On 13 March 2013, Simon launched the national cultural policy Creative Australia, which was the successor to Creative Nation, which was delivered by Paul Keating in 1994. Simon considered Creative Australia to be a fresh expression of the values and priorities that would sustain Australia as a richly creative society in the 21st century, and it continued the spirit of engagement with the arts embraced by ex Labor prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating. Minister Crean described Creative Australia at the time as being 'about creating excellence, creating jobs, creating prosperity, creating opportunity and creating unique Australian stories, all vital to an outward-looking, competitive and confident nation.'</para>
<para>Labor is proudly and unashamedly the party of the worker, and that includes every worker's right to enjoy and explore creative expression. We are not just units of economic production. Workers are human beings, deserving of the full range of the human experience. Creative Australia presented a vision and strategy to place arts and culture at the centre of modern Australian life. It spoke of five overarching goals developed in close consultation with the community. Simon Crean was a passionate advocate for artists during his time as minister and after that as well, when he served as chair of McClelland Gallery. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of the Australian National Academy of Music and always understood and championed the value of arts in Australian society. More than a decade on, we are standing on the shoulders of giants as we revive Simon Crean's vision. His goals left a lasting legacy and established the framework that was central to the development of this Australian Labor government's cultural policy, Revive.</para>
<para>Culture and arts have an intrinsic value, but, for the hardheads amongst us, they have economic value as well, generating $13 billion a year and employing around 336,000 Australians. The Albanese Labor government are delivering on all the commitments we made in Australia's new national cultural policy. In the year since we launched Revive, we have already made strides in supporting our creative sector. We have established Creative Australia to modernise arts funding; reversed the Brandis cuts; established Creative Workplaces to improve workplace standards and safety; established Music Australia to support the contemporary music industry; established Sharing the National Collection so art is shared with regional and suburban galleries; extended lending rights so Australian writers are better paid; boosted funding for performing arts training organisations; provided more support for games developers, through Screen Australia; improved tax breaks for the video games industry; and increased funding to Sounds Australia to unlock international opportunities for our musicians—and the work goes on.</para>
<para>But this bill further delivers on two key commitments announced in the national cultural policy. While we've established Creative Workplaces and Music Australia, this bill will establish two new bodies within Creative Australia: First Nations Arts and Writing Australia, together with their respective governance bodies. The government respects and recognises the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture, and my friend the member for Moreton spoke about this quite eloquently in his speech earlier today. It's why First Nations art was put as the first pillar of the cultural policy. Extensive consultations were led by Creative Australia and were held with First Nations communities in 2023 and at the beginning of 2024, and self-determined decision-making was seen as a priority.</para>
<para>This government believes First Nations Arts should be, must be, First Nations led. First Nations Arts will be a dedicated new body to support and promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice. The bill will establish a First Nations board to oversee the work of First Nations Arts. The First Nations board will be unique in that it will have autonomy over the allocation of funds for investment in First Nations Arts. The board will also promote best practice in cultural protocols, provide financial assistance to support arts practice, advise the Australia Council board on the responsibilities of First Nation Arts and report its performance to the Australia Council board.</para>
<para>Revive consists of five interconnected pillars, and the first pillar, First Nations First, ensures that we recognise and respect the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture—and we are already delivering on this vital first pillar. Since the introduction of Revive, the government has been delivering for First Nations artists. This includes providing $5 million to upgrade training facilities at NAISDA Dance College's Kariong campus, in New South Wales.</para>
<para>We have launched Australia's action plan for the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, providing a framework to guide Australia's participation in the decade. The action plan was co-authored in partnership between the First Nations members of the directions group and the Australian government. We are providing continued support for First Nations people to express, conserve and maintain their culture through languages and the arts, under the Indigenous Languages and Arts program. And we continue to invest in First Nations arts centres, as well as pivotal sector organisations, through the Indigenous Visual Arts Industry Support program to benefit First Nations communities. We are continuing to seek the voluntary and unconditional return of First Nations ancestors and cultural heritage material held overseas and domestically, particularly the return of First Nations ancestors and secret sacred objects held in eight major museums.</para>
<para>Writing Australia will be a new body to support and promote Australian literature. It will be responsible for supporting authors, illustrators and publishers to create new works; investing in a network of key organisations; developing national industry initiatives; and increasing national and international markets. Technology is disrupting the landscape for writers—that's an understatement—and there is a need for government policy to be modernised. Writing Australia has been designed to reach into the commercial sectors where traditional grants funding models have had limited success. This body will become a policy engine for the sector, building partnerships and expertise that will both support artists directly and benefit Australian audiences.</para>
<para>This bill marks the completion of legislative changes to Creative Australia to enable the delivery of commitments under Revive. It is consistent with the government's strong commitment to our First Nations art and arts workers and to ensuring that our literature sector is world class and sustainable. Revive demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to improving the quality of investment in the arts sector and to strengthening and streamlining access to support, including for artists and arts organisations.</para>
<para>As Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I am pleased to say that I am currently heading an inquiry into the Australian live music industry, which is another arm again. Since COVID, live music has suffered several setbacks, and it is another area we are taking seriously. Big festival events have cancelled or postponed over the past few years. We seek to uncover both the threats and the opportunities. A report by Creative Australia, based on a 2022 survey, indicates that something shifted in Australia's arts sector when COVID hit in March 2020. For instance, while 97 per cent of Australians said they engaged with the arts, and 68 per cent said they attended live events, attendance has been less frequent than pre COVID. Another report by the arts body found that just 56 per cent of Australian music festivals in the last financial year made a profit, citing impact from factors such as rising costs of insurance and policing. I am looking very much forward to hearing from organisers, event-goers and other stakeholders as our inquiry proceeds.</para>
<para>Our National Cultural Policy is a broad, comprehensive road map for Australia's arts and culture that touches all areas of government, from cultural diplomacy and foreign affairs to health and education. Under Revive, there will be a place for every story and a story for every place, and Tasmania wants more freedom to tell its own story, in particular. Our artists are both creators and workers. This sector is essential for our culture and our economy. As the sector recovers from years of neglect, followed by the pandemic, Revive is setting the arts sector on a new trajectory with fresh momentum. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I love the arts, and so do the people of Warringah. Almost one in 10 of Warringah's workforce are employed in cultural or creative occupations. There are over 450 businesses in Warringah in the arts and recreation sector.</para>
<para>Live music is seeing a revitalisation, particularly in the Brookvale Arts District, which also has emerging breweries and distilleries in the area. We also hold the renowned Night at the Barracks concert series at North Head, which is very iconic. I invite everybody to come along. It really is an amazing opportunity to be there under the stars enjoying fantastic music. It generally features amazing Australian artists. This September it will be from Xavier Rudd, Pete Murray, The Presets, Jessica Mauboy, Bag Raiders—the list goes on.</para>
<para>We have the Manly Writers Festival as well, for readers, writers and thinkers. It includes one-on-one conversations, Q&A, panel discussions, presentations and book launches. This year's festival was opened by one of our well-known Warringah residents, Tom Keneally.</para>
<para>Coming up in September, Manly Jazz is back again. It's Australia's longest-running jazz festival. It's dedicated to nurturing young talent, with a number of school bands always given a chance to perform in front of some great crowds. In fact, I had the pleasure of seeing my son, as part of the Manly selective jazz band program, play on a number of occasions. It is phenomenal to see all those young people get that opportunity on the stage.</para>
<para>The arts are vital to the wellbeing of Australians and enhancing social cohesion, and they are significant contributors to the Australian economy. Australian artists are our cultural ambassadors on the international stage. The arts and entertainment sector contributes approximately $14.7 billion annually to Australia's GDP. The sector employs around 193,600 Australians. In 2021 the broader creative economy, which includes both creative and non-creative roles within creative industries, employed some 714,000 people, making up some 5.9 per cent of the total workforce, so this is huge.</para>
<para>But, numbers aside, we always have to be mindful that Australia is home to the oldest surviving culture in the world. With more investment, First Nations art has gained the potential to reach greater audiences both within Australia and internationally. But we should always remember as well that Australia is an amazing, multicultural country, and through creative industries we can and must celebrate and explore all of the cultures and traditions that we have within Australia. The arts bring people together. They help reflect our national identity and cultural heritage. They provide a platform for storytelling, innovation and dialogue, allowing us to connect more deeply. They nurture our communities, they promote mental wellbeing and they play a crucial role in education by fostering critical thinking and creativity. The bill before us will expand many opportunities by investing in First Nations artists and Australian writers and ensuring that we have a strong and vibrant creative industry.</para>
<para>It's important to acknowledge though that it has at times been tough for the sector. We can give the positive numbers, but we also have to paint the real picture right now. For the Australian arts sector it is sometimes dire. It has been seriously underfunded, and it needs more policy support. I know, for example, within Warringah that we have an incredibly strong philanthropic community when it comes to a lot of arts. Recently I went to the launch of the Mosman Art Walk, which shows incredible pieces of artwork displayed through modern technology, identifying iconic landscapes and areas of the Warringah and Mossman coastline. I invite people to go and do that walk and appreciate the arts, the artists' points of view, the display and the landscape that has been depicted.</para>
<para>Around 74 per cent of artists have a university degree, yet they earn significantly less than other professions that require similar levels of, or tertiary, education. Working artists earn an average income that is about 26 per cent below the national average, at about $54,500 per year. Generally, they always have to consider additional sources of income. The average income based solely on creative work is estimated to be around $23,200, with almost half of professional artists earning less than $10,000 a year from their creative work. Clearly, we have a gap between appreciating and valuing that creative output and making sure we support opportunities for them and recognising the role the arts play within our communities and within our cultural development and how we are as a society.</para>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 31</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>