2024-06-27 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 27 June 2024

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 1

Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024

Consideration of Senate Message 1 09:01 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I move: That the amendments be agreed to. This is incredibly important legislation. I've said that the House and the Senate have had the opportunity this week to do something meaningful and lasting for the health of young Australians, and I genuinely meant that. Vaping has become a very serious public health scourge in this country. Not only is it a health scourge but it is consistently rated as the number one behavioural issue in schools by school communities and by school leaders. I want to thank the Senate for the way in which they conducted this debate. I particularly want to thank Senator Lambie, Senator Pocock and Senator Jordon Steele-John for their long, constructive discussions with the government, and with me particularly, about the way in which we can make a serious regulatory scheme work. I also want to thank a long list of outside stakeholders for their support here. This is a package of amendments not just from the Commonwealth but a package agreed between all governments. This has been a regular topic of discussion between state, territory and Commonwealth health ministers now for more than 12 months. We have a vaping enforcement working group that is co-chaired by the head of NSW Health and by Commissioner Outram, head of the Australian Border Force, that brings together not just health authorities but policing authorities. This is genuinely an intergovernmental package of reforms. These reforms are Commonwealth legislation, but they will be enforced by state and territory authorities. I particularly want to thank officers, particularly the legal counsel of the TGA. I want to thank the tobacco branch in our department. Tony Lawler, the head of the TGA, played a direct role in the construction of these reforms. And there's a long list of groups which have fought for better tobacco control in this country for five decades: the Cancer Council; the AMA; the Australian Council on Smoking & Health; the Public Health Association; and a range of academics—in particular, Emily Banks from the ANU, who has been such a strong public advocate, as well as Becky Freeman and many others as well. I want to thank all of them for their support for this package of reforms. The amendments to the bill that were passed in the Senate very much keep faith with the original intention of our reform. They ensure legitimate access to therapeutic goods is not unduly obstructed while recreational vaping in general retail settings is abolished in this country. If the House accepts these amendments, that abolition will take place from Monday 1 July. This product was sold to us as a therapeutic good. It was never presented as a recreational product, particularly not one that would be so cynically and transparently marketed to our children. The tragedy of this subterfuge is that it's working. One in six high school kids is vaping; one in four young adults is vaping. We know that vaping in and of itself is unhealthy. Almost every month we are gathering new evidence about the harms that vaping is causing to young lungs and the harms that particularly nicotine addiction is causing to the mental health of young Australians, to their learning behaviours and to their socialisation. Most insidiously, we know this is a gateway to cigarettes, and that was the intention of big tobacco. I'm very confident that in the coming months and years around the world, just as their attitude to smoking control was eventually unmasked—to their shame—we will learn that this was the strategy all along from big tobacco to recruit a new generation to nicotine addiction. We are determined in this government, and I know many members of parliament in this chamber and the other share this determination. We are not going to stand by and let a new generation be recruited to nicotine addiction—not after all of the deaths, dislocation and grief that we have seen for decades and decades because of tobacco. I strongly commend these amendments to the House. I want to thank everyone who has worked really hard in this building and beyond—in state governments and in the NGO sector in public health groups—for their support of our determination to take this very important public health measure. As I said, parliament doesn't always get an opportunity like this to do something as meaningful and as lasting for the health of the youngest members of our community as we have today. I urge the House to support these amendments. 09:06 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Unfortunately, I must strongly disagree with the minister. These amendments do not, in effect, change the importance and strength of the original bill, which I voted in support of and commended the government for taking such a strong stance on such a scourge that is impacting young people, leading them to be addicted and hooked on nicotine, which leads them to smoking. We know vaping is a strategy of big tobacco. I absolutely welcomed the government's willingness to ban it and to make it incredibly hard to obtain—in particular, for it to be done only through a prescription—to ensure that it was very much limited in how people over 18 could access it. Unfortunately, the Greens, the crossbench and the Senate's amendments have diluted a lot of the effects of the legislation. My understanding is that we now have a situation where everyone, including people under 18, will be able to have nine items on them per person, and there is no limit per day or on a situation. Essentially, you can still have a situation of a person with a lot of items on them, and there will be no consequence for that, and that can be repeated day after day. In a situation where the minister says we have one in six high school children vaping, what does that mean if they can have nine on their person each day? That is still a system where you are going to see the on-sale of vapes and a black market of vapes. You are allowing too many vapes to be in the hands of children and adults. I would ask the minister: what measures are you going to put in place to reassure parents that they are not still going to see vapes everywhere in the schools? I would ask the Greens party, who have asked for these amendments and pushed for this to happen: how will you assure parents that we're not going see this mass of vapes still for our children, impacting them in their schools? Now we are in a situation where we're going to see pharmacies essentially take on the role of a tobacconist—those horrendous shops that we've seen pop up all around our communities, as close to schools as they possibly can be, in areas that appeal to children, young people and young adults. We now have a situation where pharmacies are going to be asked to sell behind the counter a product that we know from a health perspective is dangerous—that has a negative impact on people's health. I cannot see how it is a positive development for the government to have caved in to these amendments. I strongly support the bill as it originally stood. I am incredibly disappointed with the crossbench in the Senate and, in particular, the Greens party for having pushed for these amendments rather than supporting a strong ban that genuinely puts the health of children, young people and adults at the heart of the legislation. I ask the minister, since this is the process for it: what protections and additional measures is the government considering to ensure we don't see that kind of onsale of vapes between children and a black market emerging? What measures will be put in place to ensure, with the sales from behind the counter in pharmacies, that there is the smoking cessation aspect and also the cessation of vaping? What measures will be put in place to ensure people are not addicted to vaping and actually reduce their reliance on vaping? 09:10 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Firstly, I'd like to thank the government and commend them for the work that they have done to eradicate vaping in the way that they can. There's been so much hard work done behind the scenes from public health agencies and health promotion agencies. Vaping with single-use vapes was an absolute scourge—it is an absolute scourge, I should say—and one that targeted our children in a way that was extremely cynical, so much so that schools in my electorate have had to install vape detectors in bathrooms because children were leaving classrooms to go and vape. The impact that has had on children's behaviour, their concentration and their ability to learn has been absolutely horrific. What I would like to say, however, is that I am disappointed at the watering down of what was a really incredible bill. I am disappointed. It is sad because it was, I guess, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really end the scourge of vapes and the targeting of our children with that. My concern is that the ability for vapes to be bought without a prescription by people over the age of 18—and the ability to buy over nine—will mean that people will go from pharmacy to pharmacy to pharmacy. Just as people doctor shopped to get certain prescription medications, they will be shopping around their pharmacists. They'll be able to get a large amount, and they'll be able to onsell those to their friends. Their 18-year-old friends will be able to sell to the children who are already addicted to nicotine. We know that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to mankind. The large majority of children are already addicted to nicotine. When it becomes expensive, having to buy those vapes, they will simply turn to smoking cigarettes. It is a gateway. It leaves the door open for vaping to continue, and it leaves the door open for that move towards cigarettes. It is a cynical ploy by the big tobacco companies who want to start manufacturing these vapes. It is a cynical ploy to continue to get people hooked on nicotine, which is a gateway to smoking. Although I really support the measures that the government is trying to implement, I'm very disappointed that it's been watered down in this way, because I think it will only leave the door open to more smoking in our young people. 09:13 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I also rise to express disappointment at the watering down of this incredibly important legislation. Members of the crossbench in this House were very supportive of the government bringing on what was a really courageous innovation. It's really unfortunate that it's been necessary for the government to make these concessions in the Senate. I'd like to make the point that one of the reasons why that has been necessary is that Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, in the Senate, have consistently expressed real concerns about the fact that Medicare services in this country are not sufficient to provide the support that people who want to give up smoking need. For GPs to be able to provide that sort of service, they need to have time, they need to have the relevant training and they need to be able to give people who want to get off cigarettes the support that they need. It's not a simple process. It's not as simple as just writing a script for vapes. What we know is that people can't access GP services in many parts of this country, and, when they do, many people are forced to deal with an out-of-pocket fee that they simply cannot afford. The need to water down this legislation in the way that we've seen in recent weeks reflects a failure of our Medicare services, which is heartbreaking to see because all of us in this place, I think, agree that smoking is a bad thing and that vapes are a bad thing. Almost all of us—I will come to the Nationals in a moment. So it is incredibly disappointing seen this problem with Medicare and its deficiencies, and, as a result of that, the need to water down this legislation. I'd also make the point that at the moment we're seeing many Australians resorting to online providers of prescriptions, who are in many cases also going on to provide vapes to people who are looking to smoking cessation. I think this is a failure of our regulatory system which also warrants review by the minister. We're not providing best-practice care when people can go online and get a prescription for vapes which is, essentially, sent out by the script provider. That is not a situation where people are receiving best-practice care for smoking cessation. Finally, I would like to address some concerns that many Australians have about the fact that one of the major political parties in this country continues to receive significant donations from the tobacco lobby—which is the same as the vaping lobby. I would call out the Nationals political party, which is a very bad tail, essentially, wagging the Liberal Party dog in its decision to oppose this legislation, and which has forced the government to deal with the crossbench in the Senate as it has. It's an absolute disgrace when a major political party in this country continues to receive donations from the tobacco and vaping lobby. I think that Australians should continue to consider that and that they should always take it into account every time they think about the National Party and whether or not it's reflecting the best interests of them and of their children. I'm sorry that I can't support these amendments in this House. I'd love to; I'm very happy to see the vaping legislation go forward, but it's very disappointing that it has had to be watered down in the way that it has. 09:16 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to back in the arguments put forward by my crossbench colleagues on these amendments. I too congratulate the government on the hard work they undertook to get these vaping laws to the point that they did when they went to the Senate. I have been loud and encouraging in my support of the government's actions in stamping out the scourge of vaping for our young people. We're also aware—incredibly aware—that our professional bodies, like the Australian Public Health Association, VicHealth and so many other professionals associations, are applauding the government on difficult work in stamping out another gateway, another pathway, to addict our young people into an unhealthy habit which has profound impacts on their further lives. It beggars belief, really, that we can do such good work in politics but that it then, ultimately, comes down to the decisions of a small few in the Senate who have the power to change the course of history in a way that has such long-term impacts on our nation. So I am very disappointed; I didn't expect to be in the position where I would be voting against something in the House today when it comes to vapes. I'm very disappointed in the argument that was put by the Greens in the Senate, and I also want to commend the member for Kooyong in calling out the National Party in accepting political donations from big tobacco. While we have political donations laws in this country that enable this to happen, and while we have a lack of ethics from a major party in accepting political donations which can influence policy in such a way, then we have a real problem in this country. We have a real problem when it affects the long-term health of our kids. So I thank the member for Kooyong for pointing that out. I do say to the government that it's deeply disappointing that you have had to compromise in this way. I also want to acknowledge the concerns of our pharmacists across the nation. We've probably talked more about pharmacies in this term of parliament than we have in any other time that I've been a member of parliament, so I can understand why they're very angry about this and why they're asking questions about why they weren't consulted and why they're now shouldering responsibilities when it comes to dispensing—it's not dispensing, of course, it's the sale—of vapes. I think that is deeply problematic, and I will be voting against these amendments in the House today. I'm disappointed to be in such a position where I must do that, and I want to put on the record that I voted strongly in favour of the original law that was put to us in the House of Representatives. 09:20 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I'll make some points of clarification here. The Greens have negotiated amendments to the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 and will support the legislation's passage through the Senate, as we have been doing. As a result of the Greens' negotiations, we've secured significant changes to the government's prescription-only legislation, which risked criminalising—this is a really important point—people for possessing vapes for personal use. The changes: firstly, vapes will be available from a chemist as a schedule 3 pharmacist-only medication for adults over 18 years old, rather than require a prescription from a GP. These will be plain packaged and properly regulated vapes. Data of vape purchases will not—this was critical for us—be recorded. Secondly, GPs can continue to prescribe therapeutic vapes, and a prescription will be the only pathway for vapes for people under 18 if they're deemed clinically appropriate. Thirdly, possession of personal-use quantities of any form of vape will not be subject to criminal charges. This was a particularly important point for us. There will be an eight-month personal possession amnesty period. Commercial quantities sold by retailers other than pharmacies will be unlawful. Fourthly, as this is world-leading legislation, there will be a review of this legislation after three years—another critical point. There will be an expanded disposal framework via pharmacies. There will be stronger regulations around advertising to healthcare professionals. Additional funding will be announced to support young people quitting vaping. 09:22 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I support the Greens' amendment to decriminalise the possession of small numbers of vapes. One thing that I do want to say, though, picks up on the fact that no data will be collected from people purchasing vapes. That opens the door, as I said previously, for pharmacy shopping—to buy nine from one pharmacy and another nine from another pharmacy and to continue on like that. There does need to be data collected on people who are purchasing vapes, otherwise that will open the door to on selling of vapes in the future to young people. 09:22 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank members of the crossbench for their advocacy on these reforms in a broad sense and their contribution today. I just want to clarify a couple of things. People cannot buy nine vapes. If you look at the legislation, it says you will only be able to buy one month's supply, which, given that they're reusable, will generally be pods. So people cannot go in and buy nine vapes from a pharmacy. I need to dispel that. The member for Mackellar said that a couple of times. I hear the disappointment from members of the crossbench, but let me just reiterate what we have done here. We came to this area saying we intended to wipe out recreational vaping, but we intended to allow genuine therapeutic access to vapes that were not just sort of flooding into this country with who knows what in them and a variety of levels of nicotine. To be sold, a vape must not be disposable and must comply with standards that have been put in place in March by the TGA around nicotine content and content for a range of other chemicals. They must have a permit from the Office of Drug Control. So this is a very different situation to the one we faced only a few months ago. Already we have seized more than 2½ million disposable vapes at the border. We are already starting to choke off supply. These measures, the third wave of our reforms, if they pass the House today, will see these vape stores that have deliberately opened up down the road from schools start to shut down. There is no change to our intention to wipe out the retail element of this market and the recreational vaping market in broad terms. There are different views about whether a schedule 3 medicine is a therapeutic pathway. I disagree with members of the crossbench who imply at the very least that a schedule 3 pathway is not consistent with our view about this being a therapeutic good. This is not retail supply. This is not, in contrast to the member for Warringah's description, making pharmacists tobacconists. Using that language, frankly, is quite misleading. There is no suggestion that pharmacists would ever be able to supply tobacco or stock tobacco. As to consultation, and the Senate debate I heard: there have been Senate committee inquiries here, and everybody, including the pharmacists' business lobby, has been able to participate in those inquiries. They've been in the corridors meeting with crossbenchers in the other place. I heard in the debate yesterday that one of the suggestions from that group was that this be a schedule 2, not a schedule 3—so it would be available over the counter, taken off the shelf, provided to the pharmacy assistant or retail assistant. That is very different to what is before the House right now. This requires a conversation with a qualified health professional. It is a pharmacist. It is the same discussion you would have to access the morning-after pill, a range of serious asthma medicines, pseudoephedrine and a range of things like that. I reject the idea this is some retail model. This is a therapeutic model. It might not be model the crossbench likes or the model that was in the original bill but it is still very much a therapeutic model. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia—not the business group but the professional body for pharmacists—has said, as it should, that if this legislation passes it will work with the government to update its clinical practice guidelines. Pharmacists have been having these discussions for years with their patients and customers. They provide a whole range of other smoking cessation supports and nicotine replacement therapies, as particularly the doctors on the crossbench understand very well. I understand the disappointment from those in this place and outside who would like to see the bill retained in its original form—that it would be a doctor or nurse practitioner prescription only model. This was an alternative pathway that had been discussed openly by health ministers over the last 12 months who were concerned about access issues; the member for Kooyong rightly raised them. There are difficulties getting in to see a GP not just in rural and regional Australia but in many cities as well. These are fine questions of balance. I accept reasonable people who come to this debate with goodwill can disagree, but I reject any idea that the amendments before the House now are anything other than consistent with our intention to provide only a therapeutic pathway to these goods. 09:27 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I will address two issues, and I thank the minister for his comments. The first is the criminalisation of possession, and I think this is quite a crucial point. We have seen in the past, especially when it comes to kids in my home state of Queensland, that First Nations kids in particular are often overpoliced in their communities and possession charges are often used as an excuse to go after them, harass them or discriminate against them. The Greens are very proud of the fact we've managed to get rid of criminalisation for possession or at least ensure that a kid with one or two vapes isn't harassed by the police over basic possession. That's crucial because prohibition at that scale has never worked. The government cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, so I'm not sure what we would gain out of increasing the criminalisation or overpolicing often of vulnerable communities and in particular of marginalised children. I think this is a huge significant gain because it means that, right now, for the lives of kids, if they are using vapes, it is a health issue. Surely it's not an issue that should involve the police or the criminal justice system. Pushing kids into a situation where they have to hide the fact that they vape, lest they worry about being criminalised, surely makes it less likely that they might get health support in the future. Kids should be treated completely differently in that situation; I support that. The second thing around the shift to the pharmacy model is, again, all prohibition has done in the past, even with alcohol and in other countries around the world, is create a black market. It has pushed people to seek out criminals—some of the worst people in the world—and the illegal drug trade to seek out drugs that they are always going to seek out. The state has never been able to successfully stamp out any illicit drug. Never. In this situation it's a good thing that we at least ensure people don't have to think about either paying huge gap to go and see a GP that they already struggle to get to see, to get access to a vape because, with that level a barrier, it will mean more people end up trying to access them illegally. It is a genuinely positive thing that the minister said that when they do go to purchase a vape that they will have to have a conversation with their pharmacist but they don't have to cross another financial barrier and another logistical barrier to get something that, let's be frank, a lot of people are already going to try and get. So I think this has been a genuinely good process of negotiation between the government and the Greens and parts of the crossbench that has led to a fine balancing out in this parliament of differing views about how we regulate drugs in our society through acknowledging the evidence. If anyone can point to me to a moment in history, in any country around the world, where prohibition to that level has worked to stamp out the usage of illicit drugs, I will be happy to look at it. What prohibition has often resulted in is the over-policing of marginalised communities, in particular in my home state of Queensland, massive increases in incarceration rates for First Nations children in particular, who, let's be clear, are kids. What on earth is interacting with a police officer who has a go at them for having a couple of vapes going to achieve other than further marginalising them and further pushing them into a criminal justice system they should not have to interact with? I think there are a lot of positives in this shift and I wanted to get up and defend them. 09:31 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Griffith for that contribution to the debate. I agree with him. I do not want to see young people criminalised or been subjected to the criminal justice system. I think one of the problems with what we're being asked to consider today is that we have a block of amendments. It is difficult to vote for everything when you have problems with elements of these amendments. I want to put on the record that I agree with him, I agree with the Greens' amendments about ensuring that we do not criminalise people with vapes for personal use; although I still have concerns in regard to the number of nine. I take the minister's point that he made in regard to the number of vapes and it isn't nine actual vapes, if we talk about the covering material. But I just want to say that this is a block of amendments with many implications that take us away from the primary bill that we voted in favour of, and I thank the member for Griffith for his explanation just now. 09:33 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I would like to echo the sentiments of the member for Indi. I strongly agree; I don't want to see the criminalisation of youth. That is a major problem, especially when it comes to First Nations children and their overrepresentation in our criminal system and all of that. But I do have concerns with the number of what is considered to be personal use and I would like a better explanation from the minister as to why a personal quantity has been considered to be nine, and how does that extrapolate over a period of time? Because even if you are talking about one item with a refill, is that a situation where a person can have nine refills on them each day? But there is essential cap on an amount that a person can have access to over a period of a month or something like that. Because the concern is if you are allowing somebody over 18 to go to a pharmacy, as the member for Mackellar has said, what protections will there be if there is no data being recorded for that situation of going pharmacy shopping? And that does, with respect, result in that comparison between pharmacies and tobacconists. They become similar to a tobacconist in the sense that they are providing a highly addictive and dangerous item without there being any caps or limits. I don't understand that there is any monthly cap, or anything like that, on people being able to access this. If there is no record being kept, then a person does go from pharmacy to pharmacy to get that supply. I do have an issue with the concept that personal use is nine vapes, unless a better explanation can be provided as to what that quantifies, what that reflects over a period of time and whether any caps are going to be in place. What measures are going to be in place to ensure that we don't have pharmacy shopping—jumping from one to the other—and an excessive amount being available to people? This is a highly addictive substance—or process. We know that people get addicted to it. We know it's incredibly hard for people to stop smoking. We know it's probably going to be incredibly hard for people to stop vaping. So what assistance are we generally providing? What measures are we generally putting in place now, as a result of these amendments, to ensure we are not just leading people down another pathway of addiction? 09:35 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I'd also like to thank the member for Griffith for his contribution to this debate. So many of us here do not want to see the possession of small amounts of vaping material criminalised. I concur with that fully. I'd like to also concur with the member for Warringah in asking what the data collection will be around the purchase of vapes from pharmacies—because, really, that is required so that it is truly a therapeutic relationship and it's not being misused. I'd like to hear from the minister, if possible, about what the data collection from pharmacies will be. 09:36 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank members for their further contributions. This question of possession has been a process of discussion and consideration. As members know, particularly when it comes to the pods—because all of these will be reusable vapes; you will not be able to buy disposable vapes anymore—we're conscious that, when we set regulations about these things, the industry tries to readjust their product to get around them. So these are, again, matters of judgement. What we have sought to do is to set those offence provisions, or the number of devices, at a level that does not lead to users being potentially targeted or potentially in breach of offence provisions here, to allow for a range of different scenarios. One of the matters that were put to us quite strongly in the Senate debate was that people in rural and regional Australia will often buy additional supplies so that they don't have to keep going back every month. So we're trying to take account of a range of things. This is a new area. I think one of the really positive things about the Senate amendments is the legislated review of this. Because this new regime is quite different—it's very different to the way in which we've managed tobacco; it's quite world leading—I don't think any of us pretend to know exactly how it will roll out or whether, three years down the track, we as a parliament won't say that there are not ways in which we would want to tweak a range of things and maybe change it substantially. I think that's been a constructive part of the amendments coming through from the Senate. As to data collection, again, this is something that was the subject of discussion over in the other place. Many members of the crossbench, particularly the member for Mackellar, who is a GP, know of Project STOP, the model for pseudoephedrine, which was also set up as a schedule 3 medicine so that obtaining it requires a discussion with a pharmacist. You're not always successful in obtaining pseudoephedrine-containing products when you go and have that discussion with a pharmacist. I can attest to that from a personal experience earlier this year—being marched out of my local pharmacy on a Sunday morning on the basis that I did not meet all of the conditions for access to cold and flu tablets that contain pseudoephedrine. It was rather humiliating, I must say, as the country's health minister! But I can attest that that discussion does work. The data entry requirements of Project STOP for pseudoephedrine were put in place because of law enforcement concerns around what was happening to pseudoephedrine—it was being cut up for methamphetamine manufacture—so there was a particular law enforcement imperative, or motivation, for that measure. We considered that there was not the thing here same here. There is a concern about people going into multiple pharmacies, potentially, buying more than one vape in a month and then onselling them. Balanced against that was for pharmacists to focus their the time on the therapeutic discussion rather than on data entry—generally, that's for schedule 3 medicines, with really only the exception of pseudoephedrine because of the law enforcement concern. To be effective, that would then have to be linked to other pharmacies and have some other monitoring regime, which we were not convinced was really going to be proper regulation. If that judgement is not proven out over time then we'll have the opportunity to continue to talk about that, but I thought I'd give members of the crossbench some explanation about where we landed on that. 09:41 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I'd like to talk about that linking of data information between pharmacies, because if that data is not being collected now then we're not going to be able to make a decision later as to whether that is actually occurring or not. The other thing I'd like to say—being a health professional myself—is, as you mentioned, that those conversations take a lot of time. They take a lot of investment. What I can see happening is the pharmacists having to have a lot of those conversations—sometimes needlessly, if there are people who are going from pharmacy to pharmacy. It does take a lot of time. And people do that; people do go to various doctors and doctor shop, and it takes a lot of time and investment. What I think we need to know is if that information will be collected upfront so that we can make a decision in a couple of years' time as to whether that is actually occurring? I would encourage the minister to look at implementing that linking of pharmacy data now so that we can actually make a decision in the future. If we don't have the data now, we are simply unable to make that judgement in the future. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.  

The House divided. [09:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 67 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. 10 NOES Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 14

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

Report from Federation Chamber 14 09:52 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the amendment moved by the member for Griffith be agreed to.    

The House divided. [09:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

5 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 74 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:00 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Petrie be agreed to. Proposed amendment— That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House notes: (1) that the former Government consistently delivered lower taxes for small business, families, and implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance; (2) the Government voted eight times against delivering a bigger tax cut to small business in last year's instant asset write off; (3) the Government's last multinational tax bill was so badly designed it taxed Australian companies; (4) that since the election, Australians are paying 20 per cent more income tax and the Government has banked over $60 billion in bracket creep; (5) that despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Government has broken promises to raise taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, personal income, tax, and to end small business tax incentives; and (6) that the Government's housing policy is failing to meet its supply targets and supporting forever renting, not home ownership".    

The House divided. [10:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

55 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Tink, K. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 81 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 16 10:07 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 16

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 16 10:13 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.    

The House divided. [10:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

83 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 18 10:17 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 18

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

Consideration in Detail 18 10:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Due to a misunderstanding and no malice, I think, on any part, we moved to a third reading vote on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 without giving the opposition the opportunity to move amendments in consideration of detail. I therefore seek leave of the House to move that the third reading vote be rescinded so that we can go to the consideration of detail stage. Mr Burke DYW Given the circumstances, we want to make sure that we can facilitate that there is a sensible vote. I would ask in granting leave that the member concerned restrict his comments as much as he can so that we can just get to the vote on the amendment, and we'll go through the process from where it would have been. The SPEAKER 53517 For clarity for all members, this is being actioned under standing order 120: A resolution or other vote of the House may be rescinded during the same session … Leave granted. Mr FLETCHER L6B I move: That the third reading vote on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be rescinded under standing order 120. Question agreed to. 10:20 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 25 (line 16), omit the Schedule. The amendments omit schedule 1 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This schedule would create generous tax breaks for institutional investors who develop build-to-rent housing. We believe the government's handling of the housing crisis has been marked by significant failures, particularly in its approach to build-to-rent in this bill. Since the only housing policies that have delivered support to first home buyers are the housing policies Labor inherited from us, the coalition oppose the schedule with this build-to-rent policy. Labor has prioritised corporate homeownership over individual homeownership. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Petrie be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 19 10:28 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 19

Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024

Second Reading 19 10:30 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills In my previous contribution to the debate on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 in the House, I was going through the introduction of both the EPA, which is going to deliver on the promise of establishing an Environment Protection Agency—we made that commitment at the last election—and the Environment Information Australia, the EIA, as well as the commitments we have made to address some of the unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues related to the transition to the EPA that are also part of the reforms and the changes in the bill. The EPA is a body that will have significant power to enforce federal environmental law. These powers include the ability to issue environmental protection orders—these are stop work orders to anyone breaking the law; auditing of businesses to ensure they are compliant with environmental conditions of granted approvals; providing better guidance on and education to businesses to make rules clearer and easier to follow; increasing compliance; and empowering courts to impose fines of up to $780 million or prison sentences of up to seven years for extremely serious breaches of federal environmental law. This brings penalties into line with punishments for serious financial offences such as insider trading and market manipulation. The recent audit of environmental offsets undertaken between June 2023 and March 2024 found that one in seven EPBC Act approvals were non-compliant with approval conditions, highlighting the need for both greater education and tougher penalties. The EIA will increase transparency in decision-making, including through creating a public website that will provide government and the public with authoritative and high-quality environmental information and data. Unlike the past where we saw a complete vacuum when it came to environmental data—it just wasn't put out there—this is going to make sure that the public see the exact statistics, the analysis and the scientific data that they can actually assess. The EIA will also develop an online database that will give businesses better access to this data and help make federal approvals quicker and easier as they go through the process. There will also be public reporting on the government's progress towards established environmental goals, such as protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. That's accountability. The EIA will also be required by law to publish a State of the environment report every two years instead of the previous five-year interval. This will prevent future governments from hiding the truth about the Australian environment which, frankly, the previous government did. The Nature Positive Plan is a crucial part of our environmental legislative agenda. It's world-leading action on environmental protection that recognises the incredible biodiversity and natural wonders that Australia is home to and blessed with. While the coalition bury their heads in the sand with empty, decades-away promises of nuclear energy, we remain focused on a clean, renewable future backed by scientists, businesses and experts. In only two years we've seen record investment in renewables, with 40 per cent of our main national grid now powered by renewables. That's a real achievement for just over two years in government. That was confirmed by the AEMO just the other day. This sits side-by-side with investment in coastal reef restoration, threatened species protection, transforming our recycling system, the new national water agreement and the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, among many other actions. It's not grandstanding, it's not getting up with a megaphone and carrying on and doing slogans; it's putting your head down and doing the hard work necessary to protect the environment. That's what this government has been doing. There's a lot of noise out there. There's a lot of politicisation and weaponisation of these issues. It's all about the politics, whether it's the coalition with their fantasy of nuclear energy and nuclear power plants or whether it's the Greens minor party who are shouting slogans and spreading misinformation. This government is actually doing the work. It's doing the work that a government is supposed to do. It's passing laws and getting things done. We've heard all about quiet diplomacy. I'd say there's some quiet work on environmental law that's going on here that actually has a material, substantive, real effect on protecting the environment. That's what we're about. That's what this government been delivering and the Minister for the Environment and Water Tanya Plibersek has been delivering again and again over the last two years. We've got a proven track record. This government has a proven track record of ensuring that this precious environment that we have, that we all share, remains pristine and intact for future generations, for our kids and our grandkids. That's a fundamentally important obligation and responsibility of this place and of the government of Australia. We are blessed in this continent with such an amazing environment, and the laws that we are debating today and the laws that have been put in place are about protecting that for our kids and our grandchildren. The establishment of the EPA and the EIA increase and will increase knowledge and education, and it will also make sure that those tasked with protecting the environment are doing so with the backing of strong penalties for those who fail in their duty and fail to do what is right. As I said, these bills support stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan, which has given us such great steps forward in protecting local environments. I mention the Moonee Ponds Creek in my electorate and the regeneration of native flora and fauna for the enjoyment and benefit of the community and the protection of that environment. That Nature Positive Plan and the bill that we're debating today which will support and strengthen it and the whole environmental legal framework will give confidence to business and to the public that real actions on environmental protection are taking place, are being done, and they are being done with an appropriate oversight as well. As Australians, we are all proud of and cherish our natural environment. We know that the Biodiversity Council has found that 81 per cent of Australians support measures to protect Australian wildlife of cultural significance, and 71 per cent believe that governments have a duty of care to protect future generations from environmental harm. A duty of care for the protection of our pristine environment for future generations is one of our responsibilities in this place, one that has been materialising through this bill, through stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan. That's our duty of care, and we take it seriously. We do the hard work of putting these bills to this place and passing these laws as a government and not playing politics with these issues, because they're too important for future generations. They're important for us today. We all take seriously this duty to protect the environment from harm, to protect the pristine environment that we all share. So I'm proud to be a part of the Albanese Labor government that is actually delivering this protection to the environment for this generation and for future generations. 10:38 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills. Australia's natural environment is one of the defining features of our nation. From the koala to the kangaroo, the wallaby to the wombat and the crocodile to the cassowary, Australia is home to amazing animals, unique plants and diverse aquatic life. In my own electorate of Wentworth, the annual whale migration is now in full swing and dolphins are regular visitors to our stunning coastline. In the last two weekends, we've been blessed to have seals at Bondi and Bronte beaches, which is a wonderful reminder of the connection of our community to the natural environment. Against this backdrop of beauty, nature is in crisis. The 2021 State of the environment report pulled back the curtain on the devastating damage that is being done to our environment. We have the highest rate of deforestation in the developed world and the highest rate of mammal extinction of any country, and we are doing irreparable damage to the Great Barrier Reef. And things are getting worse. More than 2,200 species and ecological communities are currently listed as threatened in Australia. Ten per cent of these have been added since the beginning of 2021. Add to this the existential threat posed by climate change, and our environment has never been in greater danger. Our failure to address this decline is in no small part down to our broken environmental laws. The EPBC Act was introduced under John Howard a quarter of a century ago and the laws are still stuck in the past. They don't protect the environment and they don't work for business either, who are tied up in a slow process driven approach to environmental approvals. The minister has rightly acknowledged that our current laws are not fit for purpose, that major reform is needed and I completely agree. But unfortunately, the bills before the House are not the major reforms that we need. They are more limited changes which, while welcome, still leave room for improvement. There are three bills in this package, so let me take you to each one in turn, starting with the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024. It has been clear for a long time that our environmental laws were not properly enforced, that environmental approvals were subject to inappropriate interference and that there was a lack of expert-led assessment of projects that have big impacts on nature. The community has lost trust in environmental decision-making and that is understandable. The government's commitment to deliver an environmental protection agency is therefore welcome. This introduction of a federal EPA is a significant and long-overdue reform, one which I and many across the environmental movement have argued for. There are important changes in the EPA legislation that strengthen penalties for non-compliance, that alter stop-work provisions so that we get decisions more quickly and that enable stop-work orders to be issued where there are clear and present dangers to the environment. These are all important and welcome. But to be effective, to move beyond being just another environmental agency and to be trusted by the community to make environmental decisions, the EPA must meet certain standards. It must be independent in its construction, transparent in its decision-making and led by experts. It should have clear and legislated objectives and it should be properly funded from its commencement. The Victorian and New South Wales EPAs as well as EPAs overseas provide helpful examples of how this can be done well. However, as it is currently drafted, I have reservations over whether these minimum standards have been met. The CEO of the EPA is to be appointed by the minister with no independent assessment process and no oversight from an independent board. While the CEO may constitute an advisory group to provide guidance on decisions, there is no legislative requirement for this advice to appear in a statement of reasons for particular decisions, so we may not have transparency over whether or not the CEO's decisions were aligned with expert advice. Furthermore, while the bill allows the minister to delegate certain functions to the EPA, there is currently no requirement for the details of that delegation to be made public. As a result, it won't be clear which types of decisions will be delegated to the EPA, which ones will not, and why. Despite extensive consultations over the past year there is also not a clearly defined ministerial call-in power, so we won't know when the minister has decided to take over and make a decision instead of the EPA. This lack of transparency creates risk and, importantly, the perceived risk that environmental approvals will be shrouded in the same secrecy as flawed systems in the past. Thankfully, there are simple fixes to the problem requiring minor but meaningful changes to the legislation. I thank the minister for her constructive engagement with my team and I on addressing these issues. I look forward to continuing to discuss this as the bill moves to the consideration in detail stage. Beyond these issues of transparency and independence, I also want to put on record some of the issues that the business community have raised with me about the bill. These relate to three key areas: first, ensuring the EPA and its CEO are accountable for their performance while maintaining independence from government; second, providing appropriate checks and balances on the new stop-work orders so that projects cannot be excessively or indefinitely delayed without due recourse; and third, ensuring that new penalties in this bill are applied in a proportionate manner. I encourage the minister to continue working with the business community, in particular representing those proponents of projects that are essential to our clean energy transition, to address these concerns. I would like to turn my attention to the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024. This is a reform that will make a real difference. The creation of the EIA is an important step to ensure that businesses have easy access to the environmental data that they need and ensure the community has more transparent information about the state of the environment. One of the major inefficiencies in our current approvals regime is the continued collection and recollection of the same environmental data. It is costly and time-consuming and it doesn't work for business or the environment. Professor Graeme Samuels' independent review of the EPBC Act recommended a quantum shift in data collection and information systems, and this bill will help to deliver that. One of the centrepieces of these bills is the requirement for the State of the environment report to be published every two years. It is important that we have more regular assessments of the state of our environment, so I strongly support this new requirement. But for the State of the environment report to do anything more than be a chart of continued decline of nature in Australia, we need real reform of our environmental laws. If these laws are broken, no amount of data will fix them. This brings me to the disappointing aspect of the legislation before the House today, which is the narrowness of its scope. The gaping hole in these bills is the absence of changes to our underlying national environmental laws, which Professor Graeme Samuel described earlier this year as 'gobbledegook' and 'an abysmal failure at protecting our environment over the past 25 years'. It is crystal clear our national environmental laws are in need of an entire rewrite. That is what the government has promised but what we are still waiting for. The consequences of this delay are dire. Businesses will continue to face an inefficient and process driven approach to environmental approvals. Native forests will continue to be logged in New South Wales and Tasmania. Land clearing of endangered habitat will continue because much of it does not require referral for assessment under the act. And our national environmental law will continue to omit consideration of climate change—the biggest threat to nature in Australia. I want to take a minute to talk specifically about climate and why it's so important that it is integrated into our national environmental law. The truth is that human induced global heating is having a devastating effect on nature, with rapidly rising ocean temperatures, floods, fires, droughts and extreme weather causing enormous damage to our environment. Our main environmental law does absolutely nothing about this. The EPBC Act does not require emissions to be considered when evaluating project proposals and doesn't even require them to be disclosed. As a result 740 fossil fuel projects have been approved since the EPBC Act came into effect, including four new coalmines during this parliament. On the other side of the coin, because climate is ignored our environmental laws don't recognise the positive long-term benefits to nature of renewable projects that reduce climate pollution. As the Clean Energy Council put in their recent submission to the department's consultation: Climate and nature are not separate phenomena and treating them separately is leaning into a false dichotomy. The government has indicated a willingness to incorporate climate into our national environmental law in a manner consistent with policies like the safeguard mechanism. But the can has been kicked down the road, and we simply cannot afford to wait any longer. I conclude by acknowledging the road to real reform never did run smooth. It is not easy to rewrite our environmental laws. It is an incredibly complex process fraught with challenges and conflicting opinions. If these laws are going to work, they need to stick. The needs of the environment need to be matched with the needs of businesses, and this needs to be something where people can come together. I know the minister is sincere in her commitment to getting this right. I desperately want her to succeed, and I will be willing to work constructively with her to get a good set of laws through this parliament. But time is running out for our climate and for the environment. The reforms contained in these bills may present some progress, but we need so much more. I urge the minister to work with the crossbench in this House and in the other place to strengthen this important legislation. 10:48 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I am happy to speak on the government's continued legislative response, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the associated bills, to the Samuel report. That report of the review into the Commonwealth EPBC Act was delivered to government in October 2020. The coalition failed to respond to that report and failed to act. Their opposition to this legislation is simply a continuation of that failure. In contrast, the Albanese government has taken to the task. This is the second tranche of reforms following the review, with a third to follow. In the foreword to the report Professor Graeme Samuel stated: Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. They are not sufficiently resilient to withstand current, emerging or future threats, including climate change. In my electorate of Hasluck, this has been absolutely evident this season. Until this crossover between autumn and winter, Western Australia had experienced a drought, and we have seen forest collapse in the northern jarrah forests. To have this happen—where, no matter how many kilometres you drive, you witness the loss of the stunning, beautiful habitat that supports an enormous ecosystem, from the birdlife of our black cockatoos through to insects and other flora and fauna—is absolutely, utterly devastating, and everyone across the community is pointing it out and talking about it. It happened once before, in 2011, and it was then deemed a 'first in the world' event. And now we've seen it again in 2024. This is real, and we have a responsibility to respond. Some of the ways in which we respond are a little dry and technical, but are necessary in order to create the framework to achieve action that's lasting. To this end, Graeme Samuel's review said that the EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform. Importantly, he stressed that because the environmental law required fundamental reform, it would need done in a sensible way, with a staged pathway to achieve it. This second stage of legislation establishes two pivotal bodies, each of them with necessary independence from the government of the day and, importantly, independent from one another. We are building the house in which the final stage of the reforms will find its home. Environment Information Australia will inform the application of the new environmental law, and Environment Protection Australia, an independent EPA with teeth, will administer it. The ALP's national platform states that Labor believes in a strong national environmental protection framework. It commits the party to pursue a strong and independent EPA, and publicly available and transparent environmental data. I wish to speak first about Environment Information Australia. I think the body we are creating here is generally underestimated. It's a great, positive change vehicle. The EIA will make a difference to environmental outcomes in two particular ways: it will become, over time, the fundamental national repository of up-to-date and historical information about our environment; and, importantly, it will be an ongoing, respected independent voice that will, without fear or favour, tell the community and each successive government, regardless of their propensity to listen to it, just how we are going with protection of environment. Recommendation 10 of the Samuel report emphasises the vital importance of improving the information base of our environmental protection system. This legislation embodies that attitude, and, through the statutory position of the head of Environment Information Australia, it will ensure the establishment and the ongoing integrity of accurate, timely, regular and useful environmental reporting for the country as a whole. The head of the EIA, while situated within the department, will not be subject to direction by the secretary of the department, the minister or any other person in the fulfilment of their statutory duties in relation to monitoring, evaluation or reporting, including the state of the environment reports and the environmental economic accounts. There will be a public environmental portal created and maintained by the EIA, and this will work both ways. An example from the UK is their government supported Environmental Information Data Centre, which carries as menu headings on its website, firstly, 'Find & use data', and, secondly, 'Deposit data'. Who will deposit the data for the EIA? State governments, university researchers and, of course, the many grassroots organisations and peak bodies that work in their own fields or regions every day. For example: just with this forest collapse, we were called upon as a community and as scientific citizens to photograph and capture the GPS data of where these tree collapses occurred, and we've uploaded that into a particular data point within the university. In due course, we'll be able to share that on this national platform. There are many other groups with memberships across Hasluck that I know will make the most of these new opportunities, such as RegenNarration podcasts, ACF Community Darling Range, local chapters of the Citizens Climate Lobby and Climate Action Network Australia. And we have Guildford in Transition; the Darling Range Wildlife Centre; Save Perth Hills; the industrious catchment groups of Jane Brook, Susannah Brook, Blackadder Woodbridge and the lower Helena Valley; the Swan Valley Wildlife & Environment Advocacy Group; and the Perth Hills Climate Change Interest Group, to name just a few. Collectively, they see what's happening on the ground. They notice the change. They can understand when we've got fuel loads and when the soil is becoming dry. They can see the changes that are a consequence of a drying climate, particularly in Perth and across the hills. Their data is valuable, but now we can extract the value from their efforts and use that data in a meaningful way. I expect the EIA will also find helpful synergies with other major repositories, such as Geoscience Australia's recently launched Digital Atlas of Australia, so we can start to join the dots around the nation. Further, this legislation places positive duties upon the environment minister to respond to the state of the environment reports in a timely way and to table annual statements of the environmental economic accounts. It's good legislation, and an essential part of underpinning the new environmental legislation and the efficacy of the EPA. The budget sees an allocation of $54 million over the four years to establish the EIA, and the legislation requires the minister to conduct five-yearly reviews too. In an article in the Conversation this month by Professor Hugh Possingham and others, they agreed that the EIA was needed but suggested that, by itself, it won't improve outcomes for nature. While I certainly understand the intent of the comment, I actually disagree. I think that this body will have an effect all on its own, both through the more comprehensive and available information it will provide and through the spotlight its reporting regime will throw upon environmental needs, outcomes and responses. The data that will be collected will include data not just on native species but also on invasive species, for both flora and fauna. In relation to feral cats, which kill about six million native animals every day, this government is developing a new action plan, and state and local governments across the country will have then the data to share. Action to remove feral cats from islands such as Christmas Island and other protected areas have been shown to be an effective way to save animals in place and avoid extinctions. Federal government leadership in this area is important so that the experience and success of state and local efforts can be shared and replicated. The feral cat abatement plan consultation late last year received over 1,600 responses, and the new draft is being created by the department presently. I'm pleased to support the establishment of the EIA. Once it is in place, it will mean, as the minister said, that no future government will be able to hide information about the state of the environment, as the previous coalition government did. The other bill before us, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, is to establish the Commonwealth EPA, Environment Protection Australia. It will have strong new powers and penalties and will be independent. Almost every state and territory in Australia has an EPA—almost. Perhaps Queensland will take the hint after this bill passes. The USA has an EPA; Canada has its environmental and climate change agency; the UK has its environment agency; Germany has the Umweltbundesamt, or the UBA. In order to show that we are serious as a parliament about environmental protection, we need to create a powerful authority to embody that intention and we need to fund it. The budget provides $121 million to establish the EPA, which will act across a wide range of legislative powers and activities, including the natural environment, recycling, waste exports, hazardous waste, sea dumping, ozone protection, cultural heritage, air and water quality, and offset appropriateness and delivery, amongst many other things. The EPA will be an independent statutory agency. The CEO will not be subject to direction by the minister, the secretary of the department or anyone else. Public statements of intent will frame the relationship between the EPA and the minister of the day. This new agency will have formidable powers and penalties. 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 environmental law. The EPA has significant separation in the regulation of our environmental approvals and will underpin the delivery of the new environmental laws that will come before the parliament next. It does appear, though, that some members opposite are uneasy about the proposals to legislate an EPA and an environment information body. The member for Page wants to pretend that this environmental law is the city people telling the country people what to do. He says we will quash investment, but this government is the one creating an attractive investment environment. It is those opposite who are trying to wreck it with their nuclear fantasies. The Clean Energy Council welcomes the introduction of these bills. The member for Mallee complained that the government seemed to want to insert consideration for the climate into every area of policy. Well, that's right. I put it to the members for Mallee and Page—and perhaps the National Party as a whole needs to hear this—that if you aren't willing to put climate related considerations into every area of policy, then you simply do not understand the nature and the extent of the climate emergency. Fortunately, most voters do seem to care, and carry that understanding. I don't just mean city voters; I mean most voters—in Mallee and Page too. The members might need to catch up with their constituents. People in rural areas understand the issues that climate change and environmental degradation carry. Let the member for Mallee go and ask the Yarrilinks Landcare Network at Warracknabeal or Scaada Environmental & Sustainability Group at Horsham what they think about the new environmental laws. Let the member for Page seek the views of the Coffs Coast Climate Action Group or the Lismore Environment Centre. Come back next sitting and tell us what those people, and others working at the coalface of environmental issues in your electorates, think about this legislation for the federal EPA and Environmental Information Australia. The member for Mallee also stated that enshrining the independence of the two bodies in legislation was an issue. We are proud to create these independent bodies with teeth. They will, no doubt, provide challenges for Labor environment ministers, and I can tell members that Minister Plibersek is up to the challenge. I can understand if the challenge of that independence would be too much for some coalition members who'd rather not have to take significant action on the environment; they may just need to adjust to the new reality. The coalition seems to be saying that Labor is doing too much to assist the environment with this legislation. On the other hand, the Greens have come in and pretended that they don't support the legislation by speaking about anything but the legislation. The member for Brisbane said the legislation is a cynical distraction. The truth, as usual, is neither of these things. The coalition can't support the legislation because they don't have the imagination to realise how necessary it is. The Greens will support the legislation, but can't say they will because they are terrified of being irrelevant to the real and deliberate action Labor is taking to fix our environmental laws. I commend Minister Plibersek for her carriage of this legislation and for her dedication to seeing all these laws—our response to the Samuel report—through to completion. I support these bills. 11:02 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills. I think that our journey towards environmental protection reforms—in this place, certainly—has been torturous, perhaps tedious, and, some would argue, terminal. This is somewhat synonymous with the 2,212 species and the ecological communities that are listed as 'threatened'—of which 10 per cent were added to that list in the last three years, suggesting a worsening crisis requiring immediate action rather than the navel-gazing undertaken by successive governments. Between the years 2000 and 2017 alone, more than 7.7 million hectares of potential habitat for threatened species were cleared—a staggering 93 per cent without being referred to assessment or approval under the EPBC Act. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Experts have advised governments that our existing laws are inadequate. We've had two independent statutory reviews of our environmental legislation. Firstly, the Hawke review in December 2009, then the Samuel review in 2021. The Hawke review made 71 wide-ranging recommendations, including a general requirement to completely redraft the act in order to make significant changes to its operation and administration. The then government's response: it went into environmental legislative hibernation. After more than a decade of inaction, the Samuel review was released in January 2021. That report concluded: The EPBC Act is out dated and requires fundamental reform. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively fulfil its environmental management responsibilities to protect nationally important matters. The Act, and the way it is implemented, results in piecemeal decisions, which rarely work in concert with the environmental management responsibilities of the States and Territories. The Act is a barrier to holistic environmental management which, given the nature of Australia's federation, is essential for success. In April 2022, Graeme Samuel appeared before the Environment and Communications Reference Committee stating: In 2020, or January 2021, which is when my report was released, we had had just over two decades of neglect and of abysmal failure in protecting the environment and biodiversity. Unfortunately, nothing of any consequence was done with my report until 21 May 2022. And here we are. After two reviews spanning more than a decade, we finally have a bill before us that seeks to correct the obvious flaws in our environmental legislative framework. But I'm not popping the champagne corks just yet. While I commend the government for its decisive and early decision to implement its Nature Positive Plan and incorporate many of the Samuel review recommendations, it does fall short in critical areas. The bill establishes a statutory agency, Environment Protection Australia, comprising a CEO, staff and other persons whose services are required for the operation of the entity. The CEO is appointed by the Governor-General through a process determined by the minister and may only be appointed if the minister is satisfied that the person has the requisite knowledge and experience. However, during the consultation process, a draft policy paper was distributed relating to a ministerial call-in power related to environmental approval decisions. This does cast a shadow over the independence of the EPA and its CEO to make appropriate decisions and does not address the position of many stakeholders, academic experts and environment and climate activists who have long argued for a truly independent statutory authority. The National Environmental Law Association summed this up as such: The proposal for a CEO model without a statutorily appointed Board may be intended to curtail political influence within the EPA. However, reliance on a single-member regulator structure encourages a perception of bias, misconduct and corruption, and increases that risk that bias, misconduct and corruption will occur because only one person (i.e. the CEO) need be influenced to affect the regulator's decision-making. To achieve legitimacy, a regulatory authority must be seen to be and be free from external influence. I think that's a very important point. In addition to curing perceptions of improper conduct and lowering the risk of such conduct, the presence of a board would ensure the EPA's strategic direction is guided by members with specific expertise in a range of areas. Board oversight provides for a broader range of skills and qualifications than a single person fulfilling the role of CEO. I'm therefore seeking some guidance from the minister on whether the lack of transparency around the shortcoming will be resolved in stage 3 of reforms. The Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill establishes the position of the Head of Environment Information Australia—HEIA—as a statutory officer within the department. It confers powers and functions, including the preparation and publishing of biannual state and environment reports, and will develop and implement a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework to assess and report on the extent to which Nature Positive is being achieved. While this progresses the recommendations of the Samuel review, I'm disappointed at the vague definition of Nature Positive and the omission of a baseline and a target year. We should be including that in the legislation, rather than it being set at the discretion of the Head of Environment Information Australia. Environmental legislation is challenging. There is no doubt about that, and I do not envy the minister's role in navigating a path with such broad stakeholder views and expectations. These bills are not perfect, but they are a significant advancement on what we currently have. I support this bill and look forward to seeing further reforms that provide certainty for our environment and stakeholders. 11:09 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The Albanese Labor government is doing more than ever to protect the environment. We are delivering on programs, projects, policies and actions to create a Nature Positive Australia. Labor is a party that cares about and for the environment. We believe in climate change, and we act responsibly. We are not denying the science, like those opposite, or standing in the way of sensible progress, like the Greens political party. We have seen the extreme right and the extreme left almost coming together on tactics on a number of fronts, particularly on renewable energy and the environment. Both the opposition and the Greens political party are all about chasing the headlines and not doing the hard work of implementing sensible and effective changes that help to protect our planet and our environment and secure our energy sources, keeping the lights on and using the cheapest form of energy—renewable energy. For both, it is all about the headlines, often with incorrect information, and not about the hard work that goes on behind the scenes. As the member for Blair pointed out, the leader of the Greens political party along with the member for Brisbane and the member for Griffith didn't address one single iota of this bill. Instead, they spent this debate spreading the misinformation that's pumping out of their party machine. Greens Senator Hanson-Young said today that Gina Rinehart is cheering the government's approval of 151 new gas wells, threatening more than 500 hectares of koala habitat. But the approval that I have right here includes strict conditions: no koala breeding or foraging habitat can be cleared. It's outright disinformation from this party of protest. Labor is happy to put in the hard work. Unlike them, we will not serve up uncosted, unrealistic and unreliable plans. On this side of the chamber, we understand that addressing climate change requires balancing environmental protection, economic realities and future energy demand. Minister Plibersek has been working with a wide range of stakeholders on these reforms, as have local Labor members. I have met with the Australian climate coalition, the Tomorrow Movement, Surfers for Climate, Good for the Gong, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Sea Shepherd and the Illawarra Knitting Nannas Against Greed amongst many other organisations. Nanna Cherry is a fierce advocate but an even fiercer knitter. I thank her for my and Minister Plibersek's climate scarves, which she kindly gifted to us. Making positive change means hard work and consultation. We've established the Net Zero Economy Agency to have a focus on the economic opportunities for the regions at the centre of the energy transformation, which have powered and built Australia for generations. We've released the National Electric Vehicle Strategy, most importantly including the commitment to implement new vehicle efficiency standards. We're rolling out 400 community batteries around Australia, including in Warrawong in my electorate, to help Australian homes harness the cost savings of solar energy. We're progressing the development of an offshore wind industry here in Australia. We've designated the Gippsland, Hunter, Southern Ocean and Illawarra zones and are still in consultation for the Bass Strait and Bunbury zones. We have budgeted $1 billion for Solar Sunshot, to help Australia capture more of the global solar manufacturing supply chain, and $2 billion for the vital Hydrogen Headstart program, so Australia stays in the green hydrogen game. Hysata in my electorate is manufacturing the world's most efficient hydrogen electrolyser and recently achieved the largest ever series B capital raise in the southern hemisphere at $172 million, which included a $15 million dollar component from the federal government. This brings our government's investment in this amazing local startup, which came out of the University of Wollongong, to nearly $45 million. This is just to name a few ways the Albanese Labor government is paving the way for a cleaner and more resilient Australia. We have achieved so much since we came to government, but there is still so much more that needs to be done. These three Nature Positive bills represent a groundbreaking step towards our promise to preserve the breathtaking landscapes, unique biodiversity and rich ecosystems that we are all so fortunate to call home. It indicates a new era of environmental conservation—one that recognises the urgent need for action and sets out a way we can address the climate challenges facing our planet. However, in recent years, we have seen the alarming consequences of the years of neglect of those opposite. We have seen so much environmental degradation through deforestation, habitat loss, species extinction, pollution and the increasing threat of climate change. In October 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel AC provided an independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, or the EPBC Act. This act is currently Australia's central piece of national environmental law. His review concluded that the act had become outdated, ineffective and in dire need of reform. The review found that Australia's environmental law was not working for the environment, for business or for the community. This review from Professor Samuel, when read in conjunction with the 2021 State of the environment report, paints a very alarming picture for what could be our future with no intervention. The 2021 State of the environment reportsaid: Overall the state and trend of the environment of Australia are poor and deteriorating as a result of increasing pressures from climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction. If we progress down this path without intervention in the constantly changing environmental conditions, many species of flora and fauna and entire ecosystems will continue to be threatened and eventually become extinct. The idea of accelerating this decline should alarm us all. Our economy, our livelihood and our wellbeing all depend on the health of the natural world. Currently, our demand on nature exceeds its capacity to survive, thrive and regenerate. Preventing environmental damage and ensuring that our laws are upheld is one of the most important things that we can do to protect nature. Our Nature Positive Plan aims to deliver stronger protections for the environment, provide faster and clearer decisions for business, and restore accountability and trust to our environmental laws. The Albanese Labor government has committed to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030, create a nature repair market, establish an independent environment protection agency and work in partnership with First Nations people. We've done this by doubling funding to better look after national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru; keeping the Great Barrier Reef off the World Heritage in Danger list by better protecting it with a $1.2 billion investment and doubling funding for the marine scientists who look after it; investing $1.3 billion to support the successful Indigenous ranger program, including doubling the number of rangers who help manage the feral animals and weeds killing our native species; and ensuring First Nations people are at the forefront of conservation efforts by investing more than $230 million to expand Indigenous protected areas. We will fix our laws so they are less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. We will also make sure the laws improve nature and protect our unique native plants and animals to prevent any further extinctions. This has been a huge task and one that Labor has consulted widely on. Last year, we passed legislation to establish the world's first nature repair market, which was a stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan. These three bills are part of the second stage of implementation of the Nature Positive Plan. The Albanese Labor government is establishing an independent national environment protection agency to be known as Environment Protection Australia or EPA. EPA will administer Australia's environmental protection laws to better protect the environment and make faster and better decisions. It will be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. EPA will be an independent national environmental regulator that Australians can be proud of. It will be responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environment laws, including recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality. In addition, EPA will be able to provide better guidance and education to make sure businesses are clear about the rules so they can do the right thing; issue environmental protection orders or stop work orders to address or prevent incoming significant environmental risks and harm; and conduct audits on businesses to ensure that they are compliant with environmental approval conditions. We have also introduced legislation to establish Environment Information Australia, or EIA. EIA will work in collaboration with Australian experts, scientists and First Nations people to collect information and produce consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment. With the information gathered, the EIA will provide the government, business and the community with reliable, high-quality information and environmental data. They will also create an online database that will help businesses access appropriate data to speed up and make the federal environmental approvals process smoother. Having this database easily accessible will reduce the need for scientific studies for the approval process to be repeated unnecessarily. The current legislation states that a review of the Australian environment must be completed every five years. This is not good enough. That's why we are increasing the frequency from every five years to every two years. This is so future governments can't hide the truth about the condition of the environment like the last Liberal government did. The EIA bill also defines for the very first time the term 'nature positive' and introduces a requirement to report on Australia's national progress toward 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. The EPA will work closely with the EIA, as well as with state and territory governments, to have better availability and use of environmental data for planning and decision-making. What Labor is trying to achieve through these bills is to promote the importance of proactive conservation measures. We want to protect and restore the intricate biodiversity here in Australia by preserving key habitats, promoting sustainable land management practices and protecting endangered species. We want to empower local communities and Indigenous peoples by making sure that everyone is getting involved in environmental planning and management. There is still a lot to be done to help futureproof the environment, but these three bills are a huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately, those opposite do not care about lowering power bills or combating climate change; all they care about is delaying progress, denying science and deceiving Australians. I commend this bill to the House. 11:22 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills. For just the second time this century, Australia stands at a unique political moment where the establishment of an ambitious and truly independent regime for environmental protection should be within reach. And, for the second time this century, our government is on the cusp of missing an opportunity to create the genuine protection our environment needs. Australia is endowed with diverse natural beauty and unique native wildlife. Both are central to our lifestyles, culture and national identity. With that comes a responsibility on us all to manage anything that would put preservation of our flora, fauna or biodiversity at future risk. This moment, where government, the community, environmental advocates and many in industry share broad political will for structural environmental reform, will not last forever. If the government chooses not to seize this opportunity properly now, this will be a defining moment in this term of government. Unfortunately, I believe this package of environmental legislation fails to capitalise on this opportunity. Delay, denial and downright sabotage characterised the last government's approach to climate change, energy policy and the environment. This government came to office with promises of speedy action to update and renovate our environmental laws, to provide 21st century protection for our forests, waters, plants and animals—no more Juukan Gorges. But what have we got from this government? Delay and diminution of ambition in a range of policy areas. Not when it comes to gas or coal though: the minister has approved four new coalmining projects, and another 25 are awaiting approval. Then there is the Future Gas Strategy, stretching our dependence on gas to at least 2050. Members of the Goldstein community tell me they can't see much different between that and Scott Morrison's fantasy of a gas led recovery. With the coalition backsliding on climate targets and renewable energy, now is the time for this government to step up bravely and not to be cowed. Data provided by BirdLife Australia shows that 11 bird species which call Goldstein home are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. They include the swift parrot, the fairy tern and the blue-winged parrot. Goldstein and all of Australia are home to such beautiful and diverse wildlife. Our laws must reflect the urgency of the threat they face. This government's proposal for a federal EPA lacks integrity and genuine independence—so often promised yet so rarely delivered. The proposed model for Environment Protection Australia would not be substantially different from the current arrangement of delegated authority within the environment department. The minister retains the power to call in—in effect, override—any environmental application or decision they choose. The government has telegraphed its intention to break its promise to deliver this total package of reform during its first term of government. We simply don't know who the next minister for the environment will be or how they might undermine the confident promises of the current minister that there's nothing to fear. 'Don't be too worried about that,' seems to be what the minister is saying. I respect this minister, but I can't trust legislation that is missing the required oversights. It lacks rigour and accountability, and I think that's what our communities want. That's why I am here, and that's why this crossbench is here—to make legislation as rigorous as it can be. Glaringly and, in my opinion, brazenly absent in this reform package is a board overseeing and guiding the operation of the EPA. Instead the government would prefer for the minister to nominate her own CEO to direct the agency—one who is not accountable to the parliament and could have decision-making authority removed from them at any time of the minister's choosing. This is not meaningful independence and is arguably blatantly buckling to industry lobbying. A board could be appointed by an independent panel which could in turn appoint the CEO. This EPA will in effect operate similarly to other Commonwealth departments. This means the minister will be able to shape the EPA's strategic policy direction through a statement of expectations. This statement sets the objectives and priorities of a statutory agency. This is the instrument through which the agenda of Australia's primary national environmental protection mechanism will be set. Statements of expectations change from government to government. The concern is the next government could have even less ambition than the current incumbents. This is just too wishy-washy, too toothless. Is the best we can do better than nothing? This was a choice, one made by the government, not to include commonsense structural integrity provisions to safeguard our environment for future generations, independent of the preferences of any minister. This choice does not reflect the urgency of the threat posed to our native wildlife populations. Professor Graeme Samuel, whose report informed much of the nation's current debate on nature positive, was explicit in his recommendation that new national environmental standards be at the centre of our environmental law. The government, prior to the election, stated it would live up to Professor Samuel's recommendations. That raises the question of where precisely they are in this legislation; I can't seem to find them. Evidently we must cross our fingers that those measures will land in the third phase of this legislation—that is, likely after the next election. I don't know about you but I am not currently inclined toward blind trust in either this government or a future one that may be less ambitious or, worse, wilfully negligent on environment policy matters. Australia's current environmental laws are not fit for purpose to preserve our environment and stop the ongoing destruction of nature. National environmental standards would shift the focus from individual process approvals to setting environmental objectives and outcomes. The World Wildlife Fund has made it clear Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. Bilbies, quokkas and rock wallabies are all facing dwindling population levels and are in danger of extinction. The koala is probably our best loved national symbol, hauled out regularly to impress foreign leaders who visit our shores—yet they are now listed as 'endangered' under the EPBC Act. It's estimated there are possibly only 38,000 koalas left in the wild. Our existing environmental protection regime and what's proposed is inadequate to protect them. Do we really want to be the last generation to see koalas among the gum trees? This brings me to the government's choice to split this legislation across three phases. We're currently at phase 2—whatever phase 1 was is a subjective question, to put it lightly—and the government last week announced the early stages of its consultation into phase 3. Between now and the release of phase 3—almost certainly in the next term of government—nearly 60 projects, including carbon intensive coal and gas facilities, are currently in the department of environment's approval pipeline. Dividing the environment package into separate phases and across separate terms of government exposes long overdue reform to unnecessary political risk. I will work constructively with any government of the day, presuming I'm still here, but the coalition's track record on environmental protection is worse than this government's. With all this in mind, I will later propose two amendments to this effect. The first addresses the inadequacy of the government's definition of nature positive. It is completely mystifying to me that we have three phases of nature-positive policy rolling out, but the government is reticent to substantively define in this legislation what nature positive even means. And while on face value it appears commendable that Australia would be the first jurisdiction in the world to define the concept, the government's proposed holding definition is not remotely consistent with recommendations of the internationally recognised Nature Positive movement, nor the advice of leading Australian environmental policy experts. The government's definition that nature positive entails a simple improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline is about as wishy-washy as this legislation is overall. The absence of a baseline does not hold the government to science-driven criteria on which the recovery of our ecosystems and native wildlife can be compared over time. The government currently has datasets available to it that, while imperfect, are a better starting point than, 'We'll get back to you on that.' The most recent State of the environment report, released in 2021, could have been referenced in this legislation to establish a working baseline and superseded by subsequent data obtained by the EIA. While I understand that the intent of this legislation is for the head of the EIA to collect data and set a baseline at a future date, parliament has no insight into who the head will be, no oversight over their appointment process and no assurance that the threats to our environment will be addressed by a data driven legal framework. Nothing in this legislation compels the government to set an ambitious baseline based on all best available sources of data. The question is also open on the wellbeing of threatened and endangered wildlife species as the EIA undertakes its data collection work. My amendment would substitute this noncommittal definition to include native wildlife populations, set a baseline informed by environmental data put forward in the State of the environment2021 report and set clear targets to reverse environmental decline by 2030 and achieve recovery by 2050. If Australia is going to define nature positive, it must signal here at home and internationally that our domestic environmental regulation is world-leading and fit for purpose. My second amendment would improve the integrity and the independence of the EPA by establishing a joint standing committee on the environment to monitor the CEO's performance and oversee the process of their appointment. The minister's nomination of the CEO would be referred to the joint committee for confirmation, effectively inserting parliamentary oversight into the EPA's operation. The committee mechanism could be complementary to a board which, in best practice, would be comprised of expert members appointed by an independent interim committee. I'm proposing this amendment to advance the integrity and independence of the EPA as an alternative to a board, noting the government has explicitly ruled one out without sufficient explanation. And there is a precedent—the parliamentary oversight committee integral to the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. But it appears that the government is reluctant to allow any further parliamentary involvement in oversight and monitoring of executive branch decision-making. If it's good enough for parliament to make sure a body is set up to bring the corrupt to account, so should there be a body to make sure the authority designed to protect the environment is doing its job. Both are cases of sunlight being the best disinfectant. In 2005 when climate change policy and discourse were settling into the public consciousness, the member who is now Prime Minister tabled substantive legislation which would have created a new matter of national significance under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It would have required major new projects to be assessed for their potential to contribute to climate change—in short, a climate trigger. Where did this courage go? The crossbench has repeatedly called for broad national environmental standards for matters of national significance, an EPA with independence and integrity and—like the now Prime Minister himself did—an assessment of the risk a project may pose to climate change. Almost like clockwork, as it has developed this legislation, the government has failed to meet its timetables and now appears set to divide aspects of the reform across two terms of government, which relies on re-election. This is a very high-risk strategy when, as we've seen in recent days, the climate wars are on again in earnest, ignited by the opposition leader's plans on nuclear energy—climate war 2. There is conjecture about whether it was all a mistake. Did the opposition leader understand he was being asked about 2035 targets, not 2030? If not, he couldn't correct his error, because to have done so would have revealed how little he understood about either climate or energy policy. If yes, he has backsliding on Australia's Paris commitments. Neither is good. Now, the alternative dumpster fire: the distracting nuclear policy that can only make our power bills even more expensive, and now an EPA without genuine independence or real authority. This looks like business as usual for the major parties. 11:36 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the package before the House today of nature positive bills, because, after 10 years of environmental neglect, we really have a lot of work to make good on those past wrongs and those actions that were not taken when they were perhaps most timely needed to be taken. Still, one should always aim to make amends, so making up for those past wrongs is very much a part of the package that is before the parliament today. The Albanese Labor government is indeed committed to ensuring that our precious and irreplaceable natural environment is repaired and that it continues to be nurtured and protected so that the environmental vandalism of the past remains in the past. There was a very strong platform when coming to this government. When we took our policies out to the Australian public, we promised a strong national independent environmental protection agency that would be that tough cop on the beat and today we are delivering on that. That is an important part of this package. In my region, the package does a number of critical things. It not only delivers the environmental protection agency but it also has some important work around establishing Environment Information Australia—we will come to that—and a number of other important matters. But for time being, I will just say that the establishment of a national environment protection authority for Australia has been long requested by my community. We first came across this need when we had to tackle the PFAS contamination around the Air Force Base at Williamtown in my friend and electoral neighbour, the member for Paterson's, electorate. What was critical and missing at that time was having any kind of national overview and the capacity to act in a coordinated fashion, not just to deal with the matters of treatment of PFAS now but to ensure there are adequate protections going forward and to do some of the detailed work on it. It was a recommendation in inquiries that I took part in and that the member for Paterson led again in the following parliament. So the establishment of an Environmental Protection Australia is great news for the people in Paterson, around Katherine and all those areas where we've subsequently found PFAS to be such a big issue. That is just one example of why you need a proper national body that is well coordinated and well managed to do the work. As I said, it was something that my community was alive to, through that experience with PFAS and through many others as well, which I will come to. A national EPA will ensure compliance with environmental laws that do in turn ensure that nature is protected while supporting the sustainable development of industries that are wanting to do the right thing. This isn't some pretence that this is a pristine world where humans are not interacting with environment, but we are making sure that those people that do engage in properly thought through sustainable development options—we have industries that work in that space too—have a national EPA body that they can trust and work with and that has the trust of our communities to be always upholding the protection of our environment front of mind. A national EPA will also streamline regulatory decision-making and restore public trust in environmental law, which has been significantly eroded after a decade of neglect and sometimes open vandalism. The current regulatory system is broken, and this is widely agreed on by all parties. It is a rare day when you have all your environmental groups alongside those doing business and development agreeing that the current regulatory system is broken. The EPA that is part of this package of bills is designed to fix that. We recognise that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. This our mechanism to do that. It will provide tougher penalties for people who do the wrong thing, as it should. It will make careless or deliberately unlawful operators think twice about breaking environmental laws. We need those disincentives to be powerful. It will improve the processes for businesses, providing more certainty and reducing red tape, which will be a welcome relief from the current complex bureaucracy and uncertainty. Most importantly, a national environmental protection authority will protect our unique natural environment. That is its primary job. Many of our unique native plants and animals are now facing extinction due to years of environmental mismanagement. I know that my office would not be alone with regard to the level of anxiety, which is expressed by many, particularly our young environmentalists, all of whom are very well schooled now through the education system about extinction of our precious mammals and much of our flora. That is what is uniquely Australian. So, making every effort to stem those extinctions, we've made some very strong commitments around zero new extinctions. It's a very important step for the Australian parliament to be taking. This agency will have a particular focus on land clearing and deforestation, which of course is the single biggest cause of extinctions. I've got to say that this will be very welcome news for my favourite Australian bird, the rare freckled duck. The freckled duck is endemic to Australia and predominantly found in the eastern interior of the country, being wetland dependent. It's drought, habitat destruction and hunting that continue to put untold pressure on the freckled duck numbers. Thankfully, since 1993 the Hunter Wetlands Centre in my electorate of Newcastle—which I note was once a dumping ground, basically, for a lot of industrial waste and is now an internationally recognised Ramsar wetland. It's a perfect example of what can happen; this is now the habitat for the very endangered freckled duck. We have been running a captive breeding program to conserve the freckled duck numbers, which has since produced the largest captive population in Australia. So my community is playing a very important role in the protection of this particular duck species that's now endangered and on the verge of extinction. We're doing our part to try and turn that around, and the legislation that we're putting before the parliament today is going to help us in this regard. I do want to say a very big, deep personal thanks to the Hunter Wetlands Centre and their amazing community of volunteers for their excellent advocacy and hard work in my community. It's with deep gratitude that I bring your work to the attention of the Australian parliament today. Thankfully, the Hunter Wetlands Centre was indeed included in the internationally recognised Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site back in 2002, providing a much-needed safe haven for the freckled duck. In 2016 the centre started a program releasing healthy juvenile ducks back into the wild while keeping the captive breeding program operating on site. That's a good news story to share with the Australian parliament. The program has already helped expand the numbers of this rare and vulnerable species in the wild, and this is a huge success story for the freckled duck. This Labor government went to the election promising better environmental protections, resulting in many more success stories like the one I've just shared with you today. Through the establishment of the EPA, we will be able to deliver for the freckled duck, for her rare and endangered animal friends, for plant and marine life and for Australians who love the environment and know what we can do better. We'll also be able to monitor—this is important—and report on freckled duck numbers so that we will know if they need our help again in the future, through the establishment of Environment Information Australia. That's what this package of bills also enables us to do—to set up Environment Information Australia. Currently, environment information and data are terribly fragmented. It's of uncertain quality. It's difficult to access and often unusable, so it's not especially helpful for any of us right now. The proposed EIA will collect and report on high-quality and authoritative environmental data more accurately and with increased frequency to provide for faster, better decision-making. The agency will work collaboratively with Australia's experts on our natural environment, including First Nations people, who have a deep, intimate connection to and knowledge of Australia's unique natural environment. They come with 65,000-plus years of knowledge about those very intricate ecosystems and the exquisite examples of flora and fauna. They are amongst our most respected environmental scientists. They will be working with and feeding information into Environment Information Australia, along with other environmental experts in their fields. Together they will collect and provide transparent and precise reporting and accurate evaluation of data and environmental protection laws to inform good investment, good policy and good regulatory decision-making. That's what the Australian community expects of any government. Certainly this government is one that holds a high bar for what we expect from the agencies and services that we establish, and this will go a great way to help restore some of that public trust. The bills are also the second of a three-stage approach that the Albanese Labor government, under the direction of the minister for environment, the member for Sydney, has around the Nature Positive Plan. We've established the world's first nature repair market—that's already been done; that was in the first tranche of legislation—making it easier for landholders, including First Nations people and organisations, conservation groups, farmers, businesses and charities, to invest in the great work of repairing nature. But we know that there is lots more to do. No one pretends otherwise. Our planet is a very important asset to each and every one of us, and Australia will be doing the heavy lifting necessary to ensure that for the continent of Australia, at least, we are doing everything we can to stem some of that damage and degradation from years of neglect. That's not a position any of us want to go back to. We know that there's the need for the big reforms of the EPBC Act, which we are committed to fully delivering in that next, third stage of our Nature Positive Plan. Native forest logging will be regulated by national environmental laws, for the first time ever, through the National Environmental Standards, and that is part of our Nature Positive Plan too. There is much more work to do, but you can be assured that this government is deeply committed to delivering the strongest environment laws this country has ever seen. 11:52 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah In 2022, the full bench of the Federal Court overturned the Sharma v Minister for the Environment case, and, in doing so, found that, under the EPBC Act, the minister has no duty to consider climate change impacts in the decisions the minister makes. The court said, 'Such a matter is for the parliament.' Here we are, with the opportunity to improve our environmental laws, and, with respect, the minister is not doing that. It is so important that the nature-positive reforms must, as a matter of urgency, recognise the impact of global warming on the environment. The minister says that further tranches of reform are coming and will address shortcomings of the legislation then, but, with respect, as decisions continue to be made we, at the very minimum, need to implement interim measures to take into account and implement better protections. A case in point is that, only two days ago, the minister recently approved Gina Rinehart's Atlas gas project out to the year 2080, which puts at risk koala habitats and will exacerbate the climate crisis. It will, in turn, further destroy the environment that the minister is tasked to protect. The minister is adamant that the impact of emissions from gas approval projects that go through her office will be dealt with or are dealt with by the safeguard mechanism, but, at the same time, the government is on notice that those very mechanisms are flawed, as facilities are not properly measuring and monitoring methane emissions from gas extractions, and they are not properly reporting it. Therefore, they are not properly offsetting the full impact of their emissions through the safeguard mechanism. Every new project approved by this minister and the next ministers will do significantly more damage to the environment via the emissions of those projects than the government will acknowledge and account for. Without including provisions for this law to take into account the impact of climate change and the impact of emissions on the environment, this minister and future ministers for the environment will continue to ignore the biggest threat to nature—global warming. In question time, we've seen the government ask itself a number of dorothy dixers regarding its environmental credentials, trying to greenwash over its repeated approvals of more coal and gas. There is a disconnect. Over the last two centuries, Australia has suffered the largest-recorded degeneration of biodiversity across the globe and, of course, the climate crisis sits alongside this biodiversity crisis. Sadly, it is the Labor government and the coalition who have now again refused to support the introduction into legislation of a duty of care to future generations as proposed by Senator Pocock and those very students who were overturned in the earlier case. I note we have students in the gallery here watching this process of decision-making. They should be aware the major parties—Labor and the coalition—are refusing to implement into legislation a duty of care for their generation and future generations. That is important, especially while we were in the midst of an extinction crisis. The numbers are simply appalling. Approximately three billion mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and frogs were killed or displaced in the Black Summer fires. There have been seven mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, including one occurring right now—not that you would know from the amount of attention it has had from the government or the media—and totalling five in the last seven years. It simply cannot recover when it happens consecutively that way. There have also been multiple major fish kills in the Murray Darling Basin and the deaths of large numbers of flying foxes and cockatoos in very hot weather. These animals are important forest pollinators and seed dispersers. You are kidding yourself if you think this happens aside from agriculture, aside from the economies of communities. All of this is interlinked. Australia's environment protection laws are failing. It is not only a huge issue for Australia but it also represents a failing when it comes to our national and international commitments. We have committed along with other governments around the world to a 30-by-30 target to protect at least 30 percent of Australia's land and oceans by 2030. Last year the government announced zero extinction targets for the country's plants and animals, and we have signed the Glasgow's leaders' declaration on forest and land use pledge. To achieve this, we need wholesale reform, including strong national standards, an independent cop on the beat when it comes to the environment with meaningful power and a way to take into account climate change impacts on the environment to ensure we will continue to have an environment that we can protect. Like for many Australians, it was positive to hear this government promise at the last election that they would bring in nature positive reforms. But where are they? Over two years in, we have tinkered around the edges but we have not moved the dial when it comes to protecting the environment. We introduced a water trigger late last year into the EPBC Act under pressure from the crossbench, but the minister is refusing to use it in projects like the Beetaloo basin gas. So, unfortunately, these bills before us again today do little to strengthen standards and actually ensure better protection. The genesis of these reforms lie in the Samuels review of the EPBC act. That report was finished in 2020 and the Morrison government just sat on it. It then tried to introduce and ram through this place very poor legislation. I was here, I saw it, I voted against it and I was gagged. The Albanese government pledged to reform our national environmental laws prior to the last election, and the environment minister stated in December 2022 that legislation would be released as an exposure draft prior to being introduced to the parliament before the end of 2023. But here we are in June 2024 and still with no legislation in sight. So we really are staring down the fact that we are going to the next election with a broken promise and we will have not strengthened environmental laws. On the one hand the government talks about the biodiversity crisis but on the other hand we are here two years later with not enough action. So whilst the bills before us do represent a step in the direction, they need improving. It has been disappointing that the minister—and I thank her and her team for their engagement—has simply not been prepared to consider amendments that have the backing of environmental groups to better this legislation. Small changes include that the State of the environment report will be handed down every two years rather than the current five-yearly pattern. That is good. The establishment of Environment Protection Australia is a true first alongside the establishment of Environment Information Australia. I support these changes, but, without better powers and clear objectives, it will make little difference. This EPA will ultimately be applying the currently flawed EPBC Act standards. While the agencies will be tasked with measuring our progress towards becoming Nature Positive, I note that this is not even defined in this bill. The efforts of my crossbench colleague, the member for Goldstein, to define what Nature Positive means have not been accepted. This concept is adopted readily internationally and boils down to this: halting biodiversity decline by 2030 against a 2020 baseline and achieving recovery by 2050. I'm a bit ironic about the 2020 baseline because I think we've got a decline in biodiversity that has been occurring since quite some time before 2020. Unfortunately, the government is proposing to embed a less-than-satisfactory version of Nature Positive without a clear definition, target dates or real baselines to work from. Increased access to relevant and timely data means governments, companies and NGOs can better understand and report on how well our environment is being managed. That information is critical. It prevents inappropriate projects that should not even be proposed in the first place. These bills also mandate the production of a comprehensive and ongoing national environmental economic accounts by-law, meaning we can track environmental health and assets at different scales, from the habitat of a single threatened species to the entire continent. The transition bill amends the EPBC Act to increase criminal and civil penalties and add new compliance and enforcement powers. Penalties for law-breakers will be increased to up to $780 million in some instances. This is good, but it's too soon to say whether the new agency will be a tough cop on the beat without the wider overhaul of the environmental laws. Unfortunately, what we have is, 'Trust me; it's coming.' But the reality is that it should already be here. There is an appalling track record for monitoring biodiversity in Australia. The Australian National Audit Office in 2022 found that, in the management of threatened species, there was little evidence the desired outcomes of our environmental laws were being achieved due to the department's lack of monitoring, reporting and support for the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans. It's clear we have decisions being made, and I want to highlight this. Despite multiple provisions in the transitional bill transferring power from the minister to the CEO of the EPA through the EPBC Act, the government has fallen short of providing the EPA with the power to assess, give approvals and vary, revoke or suspend approvals. This is something I would like to see. We urgently need the EPA to be given these powers. Beetaloo and the failure of the minister to use the water trigger to call that project in is a case in point. Beetaloo is a climate bomb. It's a fossil fuel project with risks to water resources from both contamination and overextraction. But it has not been referred to the minister under the EPBC Act using that water trigger. We have called, written and requested for that to happen, and it isn't happening. That is why a delegated role to the EPA to do this would take the politics out of it so that what needs to be done can happen. These bills can be improved. With others on the crossbench, we've sought to engage constructively with the minister on amendments to the bills before us. That engagement has been disappointing, because there's a complete refusal to hear from groups to improve this legislation based on key areas that key public interest groups have identified as shortcomings. I will be moving these amendments at consideration in detail and speaking to them in detail. Without some amendments, I simply will not be able to support this legislation. We have a high-stakes road map. How do we implement it? Where to from here? We know time is ticking. The government must bring forward tranche 3 reforms. Along with many other colleagues, I have written to the minister on a number of occasions asking to implement the full range of Nature Positive reforms and the overhaul of the EPBC Act that is needed. We're yet to see that. I share the frustration of nearly all environmental and climate groups regarding the delay to these much needed reforms. As stated in the Samuel review, its operation has a major flaw in the environmental law. It has little benefit to the environment. Despite lengthy consultation, we are still not seeing the changes—at the very least, an exposure draft or some indication of where the minister is going in improving the EPBC Act and tightening environmental protection. We know businesses need certainty to know what projects they can go forward with, what the impacts are going to be and what measures they need to take into account. We know renewables projects, critical for Australia's decarbonisation, are facing unacceptable delays in assessments and approvals. Reforms—introduction of a priority list, for example—must not only make it easier for proponents to know where it is appropriate to locate a development to avoid impacts to the environment but also ensure limited resourcing in the EPA is directed towards priority projects. That is something I will speak to further, hopefully when we have this tranche 3 legislation. We must empower the EPA with good strong independent powers to make sure independent experts are assessing, approving and enforcing conditions on projects. Too often we see noncompliance with approval conditions come to light, and then we see a watering-down of those conditions to keep the project on foot rather than halting the project and upholding the environment and protecting it. We don't see a crackdown on the project proponents. We should have it so conditions cannot be watered down, particularly in the event of noncompliance. When conditions are related to offsets, we must ensure that those offsets are like for like, that offsets must be secured before the actions commence and that offsets survive in perpetuity. I must disagree with the minister that the safeguard mechanism sufficiently addresses impacts of emissions and climate on the environment. The government is on notice that methane is not adequately being measured—so every gas project approval under the EPBC Act is not being properly offset when it comes to the impact on the environment. From my point of view, whilst I welcome the implementation of an EPA, I am very aware these bills will return from the Senate amended. I urge the government to consider sensible amendments to strengthen protections. 12:07 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga This government went to the election promising a strong, national, independent environment protection agency that would be a tough cop on the beat. It is really important that today we are delivering on that commitment. I know this is something that is important to my community. I have had a number of conversations with local people who want to know that there is a national regulator, a national EPA, in place to protect our biodiversity and to protect the special places—places in my community and right around Australia—that make our country the unique place it is. After a wasted decade under those opposite—a period where nature was not valued, a period where we did not have these protections in place for our environment—Labor is getting on with the job. I thank everyone in my community who has engaged with me on these laws, who engages with me more broadly on the importance of protecting our environment and our climate and who continues to do that work with me and to talk with me and with the government about how we make sure we are putting these protections in place not just for now, not just for our community as it stands, but for the future as well. At its heart, that is what these bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the associated bills, and these efforts are all about. They are protecting places—and we are losing too many—now but also into the future. These are very important bills. We want to see our precious natural landscapes repaired instead of continuing the decline that has happened for too long, that we saw happen under those opposite during a wasted decade of environmental vandalism. There are clear choices before this parliament. Do we want to see an independent environment protection agency or not? Do we want to get better data to inform environmental decisions or not? Do we want to put in place tougher penalties for those breaking environment laws or not? Do we in fact want Australia to be the first jurisdiction in the world to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation or not? All of these are what we are achieving with what is before the parliament, and the answer to those questions has to be yes. The responsibility is on us to do this work, to deliver these reforms and to make sure that we get on with the work that is still to be done. Our new EPA, 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 collection so there's consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country to inform decision-making and to track our progress against our goals, like protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. It is clear that the current regulatory system does not work, as in fact the National Farmers Federation has said. Our members have said for years that the current act is broken. It's 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. So we are fixing our laws so that they are less bureaucratic and they provide more certainty for community and for business. But, of course, we are also making sure that they improve nature, they protect our unique native plants and animals and they prevent extinctions, which are happening at far too great a rate. That is absolutely what people in my community expect of government. They expect us to be looking out for this important work now and, as I have said, into the future. These build on reforms we have already made. Last year, Labor passed legislation to establish the world's first Nature Repair Market. We've 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. We are now moving, establishing an Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia. These are crucial elements of our plans to create a nature-positive Australia. We do want to get them in place as soon as possible so that they can begin their important work, and that is an important part of why this bill is before this parliament right now. We need to begin this work. We can't keep pushing it out, waiting for something perfect to be the solution. We've got to get on with it. These reforms have been widely welcomed. We do recognise that even beyond this bill the job is not finished. There is more work to do. Our government will continue consulting on the broader reforms to our environment laws so that we can get them through the parliament and passed. So I encourage those opposite, I encourage the Greens and I encourage the crossbench to work with the government on good faith to get this piece of the puzzle done and to work on what comes next so that we really are making sure that we have a nature-positive Australia and we are protecting our special places, our biodiversity and our crucial habitats now and into the future. In terms of this bill, combined with the significant additional funding we are putting in, this stage of the reforms will deliver stronger environment powers, faster environment approvals, more environment information and greater transparency. These are big steps forward. For the environment and for business, they are steps that we think are important to take now. Environment Protection Australia is an important part of delivering on our Nature Positive Plan. Passing this legislation means that we can get on with the nuts-and-bolts job of setting up the new EPA before they're being asked to administer new environmental laws. It will allow for that smoother transition of responsibilities from the department to the agency. We are also establishing Australia's first national independent environment protection agency that will have strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. So they will administer Australia's national environmental laws, better protecting our environment, making faster and better decisions and being charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome-focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. If you ask anyone who has been involved in environmental decision-making processes to date, they would say that certainly has not been the process that they have engaged in. There is so much work to do, so much improvement to be made, and we must get on with this step of making that improvement. The EPA will be a national environmental regulator responsible for a wide range of activities, including in relation to recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality. As we do this work, we're also investing in people and their capability and in planning and systems—again, to do that work of making the system work better and making it work faster to deliver quicker yeses and, where necessary, to deliver quicker noes. I come back to point that this is a tough cop on the beat—a tough cop that has been sadly lacking under those opposite but that we are putting in place now. In fact, audit work that we have done has found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environment laws have clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. Another audit found that one in four had potentially failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage they were doing. This is unacceptable. We do need new systems of monitoring, compliance and enforcement, and that is what this bill does. We're building on the good work of the Samuel review, which found that the regulator wasn't doing the functions it should; that serious enforcement actions are in fact rarely used and that penalties should be in place that are more than a cost of doing business. Again, this will be a major change from where we have been in this country before. It will mean that we are doing this work with an agency that has the powers to really make sure that we are protecting our environment as we should. It will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and enforcement actions using high-quality data and information—another new piece that comes from these laws—so that we will actually have the information that we need to act on. As I said, this is a really significant change. We are also increasing penalties for extremely serious breaches of federal environmental laws. Courts will be able to impose penalties up to $780 million in some circumstances. 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. EPA will be able to audit businesses to ensure they're 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 EPA, really playing that important role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond as we continue to work on the next stage of legislation that we need as well. I reflect on how important this will be in my local community, where so many people are passionate about our local environment and our local biodiversity. Just recently I was at Diamond Creek with Friends of Edendale. We were engaged in a tree-planting there, supported by funding from this government and the work we're doing to restore our urban waterways. The group there is doing this work to protect habitat and to restore biodiversity in Diamond Creek and surrounds. This is a really special place. It is somewhere where they tell me the platypus lives. Of course, I've never seen it on the spotting trips—I've tried to go and see the platypus—because they are elusive, but I believe there is a platypus in Diamond Creek and I hope to see it one day. The Friends of Edendale, who I know do this work protecting our local environment, and the Friends of Yarra Park Flats, who are working to restore the Annulus Billabong—again, supported by funding from our government to restore this urban river and this urban waterway—are passionate local people who understand how important biodiversity is not just for our local area but more broadly for our city, for our country and for communities right around the country. This legislation makes a difference for all those groups. It says to them that the efforts they're putting in in Jagajaga and the efforts of similar groups around the country are respected and that the laws are in place to make sure that we have a cop on the beat that is looking after our nature, that is looking after our environment and that is doing so with the information that comes from Environment Information Australia, giving us that full piece to provide environmental data and information on what changes need to be in place and what we need to be protecting. This is a marked change from where we have been in this country for far too long. It is a change from the decade of, as I said, environmental vandalism that we saw from those opposite, where nature was not respected, where there was no value put on these very special places right around our country and where there was no framework in place. There was certainly no accountability or enforcement mechanism in place. The result of that, unfortunately, is that we have seen too many habitats destroyed around this country. We do still have too many species under threat. We do need to turn that around, and that is why it is time for this bill and for the reforms that are contained in this bill: the new national EPA and the head of Environment Australia. Those reforms do need to happen now, while we also need to continue working on the next stages of what a nature-positive Australia looks like. Again, I do urge all of those in this place to engage in those discussions in good faith, recognise that there is still a way to go until we get the complete picture of a nature-positive Australia in place and do the work with us. Because in bringing forward this bill and in making these changes to ensure we have a strong environmental cop on the beat, this government is showing that we take nature protection seriously. We are showing that we will not put up with more and more habitat being lost across our country. We are saying that we are doing this work now for my community and for other communities right around the country now, but also, into the future, we are making sure that we protect places that are special, that are important and that are home to species that you will find nowhere else on earth. We're doing that work for now and for future generations. 12:21 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi These three bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 implement the government's second stage of key environmental reforms, called the nature-positive reforms, that they promised in the 2022 election. The nature-positive reforms are the government's commitment to change Australia's environmental laws to better protect, restore and manage our unique environment. My constituents value our natural environment, and they deeply care about the need to protect it. A recent community survey undertaken by my office asked the question: what do you love most about living in your local area? Time and time again, across hundreds of responses, my constituents would say that they love nature, the scenic environment and the natural beauty of where they live. Constituents also loved the opportunity to tell me about their surrounding bushland, the mountains, the rivers, the places they love and enjoy exploring. But they also talked about how being close to nature means they can contribute to regenerating and conserving Indi's natural treasures—from the Grass Tree orchards in the Warby Ranges to the native orchids in the Chiltern-Mount Pilot National Park. It's no surprise that Indi is home to over 40 Landcare groups, with volunteers who are dedicated to spending their time nurturing our environment by eradicating weeds and pests and restoring the native flora and fauna. When I was elected as the member for Indi, I was given a very clear mandate by the community to protect the natural environment that we all hold so dear. This became even more evident in the 2022 election, after the 2021 State of the environment report, authored by Professor Graeme Samuel, was released. This report painted a dire picture of Australia's environment. Professor Samuel did not mince words: Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. Professor Samuel found the current environmental decision-making framework was 'an abysmal failure'. He made a number of recommendations and told the government loud and clear that reform is urgently need to establish robust environment standards that can't be hijacked. After it was released, hundreds of constituents contacted me about the findings of the Samuel review. Like me, they were deeply concerned about the places they lived in and cared for. They were faced with the fear that our iconic places and unique environment might not be there for future generations to experience. Indeed, my constituents are witnessing this environmental degradation firsthand, from the record-breaking losses of koalas, greater gliders, regent honeyeaters and more after the Black Summer bushfires to the alarming impacts of reduced Murray Darling River flows on the Murray cod and other species and to the ever-decreasing snowfall in our alpine areas. A former constituent of mine was in my office this morning talking about the very, very deep threat of the lack of snowfall and the real threats to our alpine areas in Indi. As I consider and scrutinise the three bills before us today, the priorities of the people of Indi are clear to me and central to what I have to say. We value our unique and special environment and desperately want to turn this alarming environmental situation around. The first bill sets up Environment Protection Australia, Australia's first national environmental protection agency, also called the EPA. An EPA is a long-overdue body that will be responsible for enforcement of and compliance with our national environmental laws. This includes stop-work orders to anyone breaking the law and tough new penalties for those that do. This role is currently undertaken from within the department of the environment. In his report, Professor Samuel called for the creation of a separate office with—and I emphasise this—independent oversight of environmental compliance. 'We must have,' he said, 'a tough cop on the beat if we are to have any chance of turning around the state of our environment.' An EPA is exactly what we need. The second bill sets up Environment Information Australia—the EIA. The EIA will provide easy access to the latest environmental data so we know the whereabouts of threatened species and native vegetation. By providing this information to business, environmental approvals can be smoother, because costly scientific studies won't need to be repeated. EIA will have responsibility for setting a baseline for and recording achievement against the goal of Nature Positive. Under the bill, EIA will be required to more frequently report on the state of the environment every two years. Previously, this was only every five years. EIA will also report on progress towards environmental goals such as protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea by 2030. Finally, the third bill, which I will refer to as the transitional provisions bill, amends nine pieces of environmental legislation to give certain responsibilities to the new EPA. This includes conferring licensing, compliance and enforcement responsibilities to the CEO of the EPA in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and other laws, including those about ozone protection, recycling, waste exports and air quality. There are positive aspects to these bills. It's good to see this government finally starting on implementing recommendations of the Samuel review, especially by creating an EPA and requiring more frequent State of the environment reports by the EIA. It's crucial that the EIA and EPA have adequate resources to undertake their work, and I understand this has been provided for in the budget. But these bills must be improved if they are to truly fulfil their intention and the intention of the Samuel review. As they currently stand, they are simply not good enough to make a real difference to our environment. My biggest concerns lie with the proposed EPA. One of the main issues if not the No. 1 issue that motivated me to run for parliament was integrity in government decision-making. As many in this place know, I spent years working towards the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The work of integrity is never done. We must ensure integrity in every decision and action in government, including when that relates to the environment. For the EPA to be truly effective in protecting our environment, it must be transparent and independent of government. Right now, the EPA bill, as drafted, falls short of these requirements. We need to eliminate any risk that the EPA could make decisions that advantage certain groups or could be victim to political influence, rather than having a clear, solid evidence base that's best for the environment and upon which every decision is made. Under the bill, the minister can delegate decision-making powers to the CEO of the EPA, but the minister is at pains to state that she will still hold powers to make important environmental decisions, like whether large-scale renewable energy or fossil fuel projects should be approved. Let me be clear: I understand that in some cases the democratically elected representative should make these decisions; under our Westminster system, the importance of ministerial decisions is clear, valid and critical. But, unfortunately, the public has no line of sight on when and why the minister gets to make those decisions instead of the EPA CEO. This is a problem, but it's one that can be fixed. Therefore, I urge the government to support the amendments that improve transparency for these decision-making processes by the CEO and the minister. We need to make laws that lock in transparency, and we can't leave that to chance. I'm also concerned that the EPA will not be truly independent of government. Under the bill, there are no clear eligibility requirements and appointment processes for the CEO. There is no skills based governance board that would appoint the CEO and that the CEO reports to. Once again, this government is introducing a bill to create a statutory body that does nothing to prevent the culture of jobs for mates. So I call on the government to support the member for Mackellar's amendments that address these issues. The government's simple assertion that the EPA is independent from the executive does not make it so. It must set this out in black-and-white: how the EPA will be independent. Write it into the law; this is vital to ensure public trust and confidence in environmental decision-making. And trust is critical—absolutely critical. There's no mention of the role of the EPA to promote public trust in environmental decision-making by ensuring meaningful consultation. This is particularly important; both the Samuel review and the government's own Nature Positive Plan found that a significant factor contributing to the community's lack of trust in the EPBC Act is lack of transparency around environmental decision-making. In the promotion for their Nature Positive Plan, the government said that it's good for the environment and good for business. What about communities? If one thing is clear to me from listening to my constituents, it's that the community and the environment are inseparable. It's people who live in and care for our natural wonders, after all. Social and cultural concerns are as legitimate as business concerns. Right now, constituents frequently contact my office, concerned about large-scale renewable energy projects proposed for their communities. They have legitimate concerns about the impact on their local environment, which includes bushland and farmland. But they feel like decisions are happening behind closed doors and that there are minimal avenues to pursue in having their voices heard. We need to transition to a low-emissions economy—we absolutely do. To do that, though, we need to deal communities into the decision-making. The current bill must ensure that the EPA itself—not only the project proponents—is ultimately responsible for ensuring communities have access to information about proposed developments and an adequate opportunity to express their views. Having an EPA that doesn't acknowledge the role of communities is a real shortfall, and I urge the government to support the member for North Sydney's amendments which would ensure public participation and community rights are reflected in the new EPA. I could go on. There are many gaps in this bill about: publishing EPA information about decisions; transparency and CEO decisions that go against the advisory board provided for in the bill to advise the CEO; the appointment of the advisory board itself; and about how the statement of expectations from the minister to the CEO would work. Until these concerns are addressed, and until I can see the government responding constructively to proposed amendments, I'm reserving just where my support for the bills is at this time. I want to see the government engaging with these good-faith amendments, which will bring benefit and make this law better, stronger and more transparent, and which will increase community trust. I've outlined the myriad concerns I have with the bills before us, but I want to address a much bigger worry I have with this government's approach to environmental law reform—in particular, their delays with comprehensive reforms to the most important piece of environmental law: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act. Professor Graeme Samuel found: The EPBC Act is ineffective. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation. On the back of this damning finding, the government made an election promise to reform Australia's broken environmental laws, and, in December 2022, the Minister for the Environment and Water promised to introduce draft laws by the end of 2023. This deadline then passed, and in April 2024 the government deferred comprehensive reforms to the EPBC Act indefinitely. The EPBC Act needs urgent attention to include things like the impact of climate change on our environment. It needs strong national environmental standards that can be created by the minister but can't be reduced in subsequent standards. And it must focus on environmental outcomes to prevent extinctions and improve species recovery. The fact is the bills before us are rendered meaningless until this comprehensive legislation is introduced into parliament. How can we expect an EPA to halt extinctions when the laws it is enforcing are fundamentally broken? This government can't simply separate them into neat packages; it doesn't work like that. These reforms are urgent. They can't be delayed. According to the Parliamentary Library, between 2000 and 2017 more than seven million hectares of potential habitat was cleared, and a shocking 93 per cent of this was cleared without being referred for assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. With such a broken system it should be no surprise that Australia has one of the highest rates of species extinction in the world. This must change if we have any hope of protecting the environment. I acknowledge reforming the EPBC Act to turn this situation around is huge and challenging, and involves drafting thousands of pages of complex legislation, but the government simply must not put this task in the too-hard basket. Real work to protect our beautiful and unique natural environment is what my Indi constituents sent me here to do. As one constituent who recently wrote to me said, 'It is the only environment we have.' Nature-positive laws are within reach, but they are only achievable if this government shows the will and leadership required of it. 12:36 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I'm really pleased to speak on yet another environment bill, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the associated bills, brought here by the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Albanese Labor government, because the environment matters to this government and the environment matters to my constituents in Boothby—whether it's our native forests and scrubland in the hills of Boothby, the urban rivers and catchments that spread across the plains down to the coast, the beautiful beaches, the magnificent cliff faces or the marine environment. The environment is where we live, work and play. It supports our unique native wildlife, providing habitats and food. It supports industry and the economy. It supports the community and our way of life. Most importantly, the environment has value in and of itself. Our environment is precious and needs to be protected. This would seem to be self-evident, but we know that the last government, the Liberal-National government, did not protect the environment. What they did instead, as they did with so many things, was simply hide the report card away from the Australian people. Rather than actually work to fix the issues they had been made aware of with the degradation of the environment, they instead worked to hide the evidence. The former minister, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, received the five-yearly State of the environment report before Christmas 2021 but chose to keep it hidden, locked away, until after the federal election. This is fundamentally an antidemocratic action. Democracy is based on individual voters making rational decisions based on information as to what they believe will be the best policies and representation for themselves. But on the state of the environment, as in so many other areas, the record of those opposite is they hid information from the voters. They hid their shame, and they tried to deceive Australian voters. We now know, because when Labor was first elected Minister Plibersek released the State of the environment report—and it was a catalogue of horrors. It showed just how much damage a decade of Liberal Party and National Party neglect did to our environment. The report said the Australian environment is in very bad shape and getting worse. It found Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. For the first time Australia has more foreign plant species than native. Habitat the size of Tasmania has been cleared. Plastics are choking our oceans—up to 80,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre. And flow in most Murray-Darling rivers has reached record low levels. And it wasn't just neglect; there were actual deliberate acts to endanger and degrade the environment. Under the Liberals and Nationals, our environment fared so badly. In the last decade, on top of climate denialism, they ignored the Samuel review into our environment laws, sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, set recycling targets with no plan to actually achieve them, cut highly protected areas of marine parks in half, cut funding to the environment department by 40 per cent. And, of course, we know their record on climate change denialism. Peter Dutton laughed about rising sea levels in the Pacific. Mr Pitt 148150 A point of order, Mr Speaker: the member needs to refer to Mr Dutton by his title. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Yes. May I ask the member to do that? Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to repeat that. The current Leader of the Opposition laughed about rising sea levels in the Pacific, something our Pacific neighbours still raise with the foreign minister. I think it is worth repeating. Now, we have him trying to weaken environment laws. He wants to give projects like Clive Palmer's coalmine on the doorstep of the Great Barrier Reef, which the minister blocked, the green light. I guess we know who he considers his constituents to be. The Albanese government went to the election promising a strong, national, independent environment protection agency, and today we are delivering. After a wasted decade under those opposite, Labor is getting on with the job. We are delivering more than ever on programs, projects, policies and actions to create a nature-positive Australia. No government has done more for the environment and climate than the Albanese Labor government. Labor wants to see our precious natural landscapes repaired instead of continuing to decline, as we saw under those opposite—under a decade of environmental vandalism. The choices before parliament are clear: Do you want an independent environment protection agency? Do you want better data to inform environmental decisions? Do you want tougher penalties for those breaking environmental laws? And do you want Australia to be the first jurisdiction in the world to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation? Our new EPA, Environment Protection Australia, along with Environment Information Australia, will ensure compliance with environment laws. It will improve processes for business. It will integrate environmental data collections. This will mean that there is consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country, to inform decision-making and track our progress against our goals, like protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. Everybody agrees that the current regulatory system doesn't work—environment groups, business, developers and this government. Under Labor, we will fix our laws so they're less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. But we will also make sure they improve nature, protect our unique native animals and plants, and prevent extinctions. That's what my constituents expect of us, and that's what we're delivering. 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 now assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, that trigger our environmental laws. We're 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, and we want to get them in place as soon as possible so they can begin their important work. After a decade of wrecking under those opposite, the environment needs our protection and we need these protections in place as quickly as possible so we can continue to move onto the next stage of environmental legislation. Combined with significant additional funding, this stage of reforms will deliver stronger environment powers, faster environment approvals, more environment information and greater transparency. These are big steps forward for the environment and for business, and it's all new under this government. We're establishing Australia's first national independent environment protection agency with strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. It is hard to believe, but we've never had a national EPA. Our EPA is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. It will administer Australia's national environment laws to better protect the environment and make faster, better decisions. It would be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. EPA would be a truly national environment regulator that Australians can be proud of, responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environment laws, including in relation to recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality. Importantly we're investing in our people, our planning and our systems to speed up development decisions to deliver quicker yeses and, where necessary, quicker noes. This is really important to ensure certainty for developers and investors and to provide certainty for investment decisions. No longer will developers and investors be led along the garden path and given false hope year after year on projects that are never going to get up. While the developers will welcome the fast 'yes' decisions, the fast 'no' decisions are actually just as important. EPA will also oversee the offset system. The government's offset audits found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental 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. If organisations commit to mitigation or to an offset to make up for an unavoidable impact on nature, the public should be confident that the commitment will be kept. I can't tell you how many constituents have talked to me about the failings of the offset system. 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 just a cost of doing business. This is unacceptable. It makes a mockery of the whole system and undermines public confidence. The EPA will be the tough cop on the beat, enforcing our laws through new monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers. Most businesses do 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 and individuals regard breaking the law as an acceptable cost of doing business. That's why we are increasing penalties. For extremely serious breaches of federal environment law, courts would 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 and prevent imminent and significant environmental risks and harm in urgent circumstances. The EPA will also be able to audit businesses to ensure that they are compliant with environmental approval conditions. 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. 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 an important role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond. The EPA will advise the minister and government of the day on how Australia's environment laws can be improved, and the EPA will work closely with Environment Information Australia as well as state and territory governments to enable better availability and use of environmental data both in planning and decision-making. These bills also set up the head of Environment Information Australia. This is an independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to the EPA, the minister and the public. It's an independent position 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. Environment Information Australia will be working in collaboration with Australia's experts, scientists and First Nations people to collect information and produce consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment. A nature-positive Australia is good for the economy, livelihoods and wellbeing, but achieving a nature-positive Australia relies on good-quality and useful environmental information. This information will inform investment, policy and regulatory decisions by government, the private sector, community groups, academics, scientists and philanthropic groups. We know national environment information and data is fragmented, its quality is uncertain and it is not readily accessible and usable. Environment Information Australia will be a consistent and reliable resource for business, enabling 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 which minimise impacts on nature, projects can be approved more easily and completed more quickly. Importantly, legislating for independent, consistent and authoritative environment reporting will mean that no Australian government can hide the truth about the state of our environment, as we saw under the previous government. The bill also provides more transparency in the critical information and data that underpins regulatory decision-making. This was a key recommendation of the Samuel review. It delivers on our promise at the last election to provide consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country. 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 on our ecosystems, including the species that rely on and form part of the ecosystem. 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. Australia's environment is a national asset and a responsibility. As a government and as representatives of our local communities across Australia we have a responsibility to our constituents to protect our local environments. After a decade of neglect and active sabotage, this government is working hard to ensure that future generations can enjoy and benefit from the unique Australian environment. I commend the bill. 12:51 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin There's huge appetite for reform of the EPBC Act, which has been promised by this government. The government decided to do this reform in three stages, and this is the second stage, which sets up some of the institutional framework to deliver on the expected stage 3 reforms. Let's be clear. The bulk of the reforms needed will be in stage 3, which we haven't seen yet and which we hope will pass before the end of the year. If the stage 3 reforms are not passed in this term of government, then this government will be a huge disappointment to all those who hoped that we would see genuine protection of the places that we love before it's too late. I've engaged with the content of this bill in good faith on the expectation that stage 3 is coming. If stage 3 was not coming, I'd be trying to pull a lot more of the stage 3 changes into this legislation, but I do recognise that we need to do this properly. I recognise that it's a big piece of work and I can see an argument for doing it in parts, as long as we get all the parts in this term. Today I want to cover why it's important that we get this nature-positive reform right, how these bills fit into the context of the reform journey, my priorities for the stage 2 reforms, and some vital parts of stage 3 reforms which I've directly raised with the minister. So why is it important that we get these nature-positive reforms right? It's apparent to anyone with a news subscription, an internet browser or in fact eyes that we're facing a nature crisis in Australia. Our nature and ecosystems face significant threats: changes to and destructions of habitats, invasive species and the impact of climate change. It's been almost four years since the Samuel review bluntly concluded that the EPBC Act is ineffective, is cumbersome for business and has comprehensively failed to protect our environment. The government's ambitious Nature Positive Plan, released 18 months ago, was a welcome first response. However, since then, like many others in the House, I've been urging the government to prioritise the passage of these reforms, to both protect our magnificent environment in Australia and create greater clarity, guidance and transparency in the process of environmental approvals. The existing system is convoluted, and people have no confidence in it. Constituents in my community are highly informed and engaged in biodiversity and conservation issues. The south-western corner of Western Australia, which includes the ecologically protected Swan Coastal Plain and my electorate of Curtin, was the first global biodiversity hotspot to be recognised in Australia and one of only 36 in the world. Currently more than half its plants are endemic to this region, as are many animals, including critically endangered animals that rely on this habitat for survival. In Curtin we have 19 community conservation groups with passionate volunteers who steward the protection of our wetlands, bush and coastal parks. They have observed firsthand the impact of climate change, our deteriorating environment and the extinction crisis. I'm also fortunate to have a significant number of biodiversity and conservation experts in Curtin who are leading academics in this field. There are also many constituents in my electorate employed by the energy sector, and there's a lot of concern about the lack of clarity surrounding approval processes. Over the past two years requests for updates on these reforms have represented a significant proportion of my constituent inquiries. So how do these bills fit into the reform agenda? As I said, this is the second of three proposed stages of reform. Stage 1 is complete with the establishment of the Nature Repair Market and expanding the water trigger. These three bills represent stage 2 of the plan, establishing the foundational framework of Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia, as well as consequential amendments to the EPBC Act and other environmental legislation to accommodate the establishment of these two bodies. I want to make it clear that I am supportive of an independent well-funded EPA with clear functions and duties. I'm also supportive of a well-functioning EIA that has a broad scope and the ability to manage significant data that will support better environmental and investment decisions in the future. These will be some of the building blocks that enable the protections we're hoping are coming in stage 3. On their own they don't achieve this, but they are pieces of the puzzle. Biodiversity and conservation data collection is critical. Governments have been collecting data for each State of the environment report since 1995, yet none of it has been saved in usable form anywhere. I find that extraordinary. Every time we do a State of the environment report, we effectively start from scratch. The government tells us that these two agencies will provide more support for faster environmental approval decisions on projects, and more environmental information and transparency. The institutions we establish to protect our environment should contain an appropriate level of ambition in their governing infrastructure that is consistent with the level of ambition we want to see and the laws they'll be administering. Having not seen the stage 3 reforms yet, it's hard to know exactly what's needed to deliver on them. This is one of the challenges of doing the reform in stages. But taking it on good faith that stage 3 is coming, there are some requirements for these institutions to be set up for success to deliver on a coherent nature-positive reform package under the anticipated stage 3 changes. We need a strong, well-funded, independent EPA with unambiguous functions and duties. We need an EIA with appropriate measurement monitoring and natural capital accounting tools that enable it to manage significant data and establish a regional reporting framework. And we need a definition of 'nature positive' that's consistent with our international goals, and the consistent application of that definition across stage 2 legislation. I have concerns about these bills in these three areas. First I want to say something about the concept of independence. It's critical that the Environment Protection Australia agency is independent and transparent, with strong compliance and enforcement processes and a focus on positive-nature outcomes. A strong EPA will be undermined if it can be influenced by vested interests or directed by government. The WA EPA has recently undergone a review. Serious concerns have been raised that the recommendations of that review are fatal to the independent purpose of the WA EPA. There's a renewed emphasis in the recommendations on facilitating quicker decision-making and sustainable development, rather than on its statutory purpose, which is the protection of the environment. We do need efficient processing of matters, but not at the expense of good decisions. There's a strong perception in Western Australia that the state EPA has been hijacked by industry pressure on the government to fast-track development approvals at the expense of nature. The bill before this House anticipates the new head of the EPA, the EPA CEO, will be appointed on direct recommendation of the minister or government. It would be preferable for the CEO appointment to be transparently made by an independent board—a board that's independent of government, management and stakeholder groups and selected due to their relevant skills and experience—and for the EPA CEO to be accountable to that board. This model has been recommended by many during the consultation process. Good governance is important; it fosters trust and removes risk. I'll be supporting the amendments proposed by the member for Mackellar to strengthen the independence and governance of the EPA. I also want to say something about the definition of 'nature positive'. The minister's choice of the term 'nature positive' for this reform package is significant. Words matter. The Prime Minister has endorsed the Leaders Pledge for Nature, which aims to step up global ambition to tackle the climate crisis, halt biodiversity loss and deliver a nature-positive world by 2030. At COP15, Australia signed up to the global biodiversity framework to address biodiversity loss, restore ecosystems and protect indigenous rights. This plan includes concrete measures to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. That goal has been consistently adopted around the world to guide urgent action to get nature visibly and measurably on the path of recovery. In the EIA bill, 'nature positive' is defined as an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline. But the bill does not include a goal for recovery or a baseline. Instead, the bill provides for the head of the EIA to determine the baseline for 'nature positive'. I think the definition of 'nature positive' in the EIA bill should reflect our commitment and include a clear goal to halt biodiversity decline by 2030, measured against a 2021 baseline. It makes sense to make the 2021 baseline consistent with current, national state of the environment report data. I'll support the amendment put by the member for Goldstein to strengthen the definition of 'nature positive' in this bill. Over the last few weeks, I've considered, drafted and proposed to the minister's office several other amendments that experts believe would improve the stage 2 reform bills. However, I accept that the primary objective of these bills is to establish a foundational institutional framework that has the requisite capacity and expertise to administer the forthcoming substantive stage 3 reforms. I note the minister's reluctance to drag into these bills parts of the stage 3 reforms, and I can see that doing this in a piecemeal way could create a legislative framework that's unworkable, impractical or incomplete. So, whilst I have concerns about the set up of these institutions, I support the establishment of the EPA and the EIA in these bills. I want to finish with some comments about the upcoming stage 3 legislation. As I mentioned, we're waiting for opportunity to review very significant reforms as part of stage 3. We expect national standards that are robust and legally enforceable. They must deliver a meaningful shift in our environmental laws to a new decision-making framework that's characterised by objective assessment processes and nature-positive outcomes. I wrote to the minister recently, seeking her assurances that key reforms would be included in that package and that we would see those reforms in this term. These critical issues for reform include the legislative application of a mitigation hierarchy, the recalibration of the purpose of the offset scheme, a consideration of cumulative regional impact and the participation of First Nations people in the assessment of culturally significant ecological communities and habitats. I'm going to address each of these briefly. In relation to a mitigation hierarchy, every expert I speak with about these reforms calls for consistent guidance and tools for decision-makers to assess what amounts to an improvement and net gain in biodiversity. There must be a clear hierarchy and consistent application. Firstly, there must be avoidance. If that's not possible then it must be minimisation. If that's not possible then it must be rehabilitation. And if that's not possible then it must be restoration, offset and enough resources to follow up compliance. Where a project represents irreversible damage, decision-makers must have the regulatory tools to decline approval. In relation to the offset regime, the primary focus of the legislation needs to be on prevention and avoidance rather than rehabilitation and offset. I'm aware that there has been a recent departmental audit of the offset policy. However, there are significant concerns that this policy distorts the purpose of nature positive and is consistently being breached. The offset regime must form part of the legislation and must be the option of last resort. On cumulative regional impact, the stage 3 legislation must recognise that decisions about individual projects cannot be made in a vacuum. Ecological communities and environmental values are not static. Self-evidently, species and habitats extend beyond the footprint of a single project. Multiple projects or proposals have a cumulative impact across a region. This is particularly so in Western Australia. In the context of cumulative impact, conservation planning proposals and project assessments must include a consideration of climate. For Aboriginal people, ecological communities and habitats may be worthy of protection due to their cultural significance, even if they're not threatened species. We must have a new national standard that embeds regional Indigenous participation in the process of assessment and determination of culturally significant ecological communities and habitats. In conclusion, I recognise that wholesale reform of our environmental laws is a massive undertaking. I welcome these stage 2 reforms to set up the institutional architecture to deliver on further significant reforms. The independence of the EPA will be very important in ensuring that decisions are made for the right reasons. Words matter, and the minister has chosen the badge 'Nature Positive'. We must define that term consistently to meet international standards and reflect it as the underlying concept throughout this package. We cannot afford to wait much longer for stage 3 reforms, and I urge the minister to introduce those as soon as possible so they can be passed this year. We're looking for strong, enforceable national standards that embed objective assessment processes and nature positive outcomes. 13:06 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I am very pleased to rise on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024. This is the second tranche of environmental legislation that we have brought in since coming into government, and a very important one at that. Our environmental laws are broken, they are not fit for purpose and they are a relic of a day gone by. We now have a different set of environmental circumstances that mean we need to consider projects faster so that we can approve the projects that meet environmental standards, while also ensuring that the standards of habitat protection, protection of our wildlife and protection of our precious natural wonders are maintained and increased in this day of rising temperatures. The previous government actually started this work. The previous government engaged Professor Graeme Samuel to conduct a review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. In the typical fashion of the former Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison governments, they conducted a review, completely ignored it and decided to do their own thing. One of the key recommendations of Professor Samuel was that the federal government and this parliament should create and uphold national environmental standards, and that we should not be divesting our responsibilities to the states and territories to approve environmental projects or requests. What did those opposite do when they had the privilege of sitting on the Treasury benches? They introduced an Abbott-era style of bills where they basically removed any responsibility from the federal government to be a part of those decision-making processes, ignored Professor Samuel and didn't create the national environmental standards and tried to divest all of those responsibilities to the states. The member for Farrer, who is now the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, was the environment minister at the time. Not only did they gag debate—I know this because I was one of the few speakers who managed to speak on the second reading debate—but they got to a point where they were so sick of having any form of democratic process around their terrible environmental bills that they forced the question for no reason. There was no rush to give the states more power in environmental approvals and to relinquish the federal government from environmental decision-making, but those opposite decided that they'd had enough of democracy, and what they wanted was to ram through the debate. They did so, and then, thankfully, in the other place—in the Senate—their bills were rejected not once but twice. They not only ignored their own review, by Professor Samuel, and creating national environmental standards, but then, when they brought that bill into this place, they decided they didn't want members talking about it and that they were going to try and ram it through. Then, in classic Morrison government style, it blew up in their face and was rejected by the Senate. I'm grateful for every senator that voted against that bill, as I did in this place, because what we want is greater and stronger environmental protections in this country, not weaker. The first set of environmental reforms that we have brought in since coming to government were for extending the water trigger to unconventional gas. This was an important reform. We did that at the end of last year. It means that any unconventional gas project that is likely to impact water will have to go through the usual processes. One of the high-profile cases, obviously, is the Beetaloo gas basin in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that the proponent of that project has been communicated with to outline their responsibilities, because it is the proponent's responsibility to put forward propositions under the act. That proponent has been notified. As far as I'm aware, there is no current proposal before the environment minister, but we will have to wait and see. Nonetheless, that was a very important reform, which leads us to these bills before the House. 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, will do a number of things. The first bill is to create the Environment Protection Australia authority, which is going to be such an important institution resourced to be the watchdog and to ensure that companies are complying with environmental standards. The second bill is to create Environment Information Australia to ensure that we have the data and the information that is required to monitor and to understand the state of our environment. We're not going to bury the state of the environment report like those opposite did when they were in government. We are going to be transparent, and we are creating institutions that will lead to greater transparency around environmental management. The other thing I want to say before I go into more of the details on these bills is that the electorate of Macnamara, which I have the privilege of being the member for, is one that stands for not only greater climate action but stronger environmental protection as well. It is an electorate that cares deeply about our environment and about the incredible natural wonders that we have here in Australia. I am proud—and I think each and every member of this place knows—that not only do I stand for greater climate action and better environmental protection but the people of Macnamara do too. Macnamara is one of the electorates and communities that people know want to see reform in this area. Since coming into government we have demonstrated that we are constantly looking to move on from the laggard approach of the previous government and actually take environmental management and climate change seriously. I want to thank the—literally—thousands of members of my community who have called, emailed and spoken to me about the need for environmental reform. This bill, I hope, is an important step that is recognised as part of that process to bring forward more environmental protections. Under the previous government, the State of the environment report was hidden by the now deputy leader of the Liberal Party. It was received prior to Christmas, but they chose to keep it hidden. They chose to lock it away until after the federal election in 2022. Here are some of the things that report said at that time: Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent; for the first time, Australia has more foreign plant species than native; plastics are choking our oceans; and flow in the Murray and Darling rivers has reached record low levels. That's the state of the environment under those opposite, and now we have those opposite no doubt opposing any form of environmental protection improvements in this place. Interestingly, we also have the Greens in the other place looking to delay a reference to the Senate review committee. Apparently, we have to get environmental reform done as quickly as possible but the Greens want to delay this bill by at least a month. Thankfully, that was defeated. Clearly, they want a bit of a break over the holidays and aren't interested in doing the environmental reform. Anyway, that's a matter for them! On the other hand, we have set a national goal of protecting at least 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030; we'll make it easier for First Nations Australians to protect their cultural heritage; we've signed the Leaders' Pledge for Nature at the United Nations, which is something the previous government didn't do; we're establishing a new Nature Repair Market to reward farm and other landholders for their work in protecting nature; we've introduced legislation to the parliament to strengthen regulation on ozone-depleting gases; we've joined the international High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution by 2040 and the new Plastics Economy Global Commitment; we're working with state and territory governments to improve waste management and to build a more circular economy; and we're delivering on our $1.2 billion record investment into the Great Barrier Reef and funding for native species protection, including for our beloved koalas. These bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, comprise one of most significant steps forward by a federal government in more than a decade. They will establish the national Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Information Australia. These two organisations will ensure compliance with environmental laws, improve processes for business and integrate environmental data collection. This will mean consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country to inform decision-making and to track progress against our goals, like protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. This delivers on our commitment to respond to Professor Graeme Samuel's landmark review of our national environmental law reform—something that those opposite commissioned but completely ignored. It's also important to note that EPA, Environment Protection Australia, will be given powers to issue environmental protection orders, also known as stop work orders, to those in breach of the law and to audit businesses to ensure they're compliant with environmental conditions—and there will be maximum fines for breaches of environmental laws. The new EPA will make sure that businesses are clear about these rules. We can all be clear that the current system we have in place is simply not adequate. The Australian Conservation Foundation said about these new laws: ACF welcomes the government's announcement that it will set up an agency to enforce environment laws—something previous governments failed to do. An audit ordered by the minister last year found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental 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 that they were doing, and this is clearly unacceptable. These bills will fix our laws; they respond to both the findings of our audit and the Samuel review. We will make sure that we improve our native plants species and prevent extinctions—that's what Macnamara expects. Macnamara expects that we come into this place and improve the environmental protections in our country. EPA is a truly national environmental regulator that Australians can be proud of. It will be responsible for a wide range of activities under our environment laws, including in relation to recycling and waste; exports; hazardous waste; wildlife trade; sea-dumping; ozone production; underwater cultural heritage; and air quality. The EPA will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and environment actions using high-quality data and information, and it will provide assurance that environmental outcomes are being met. The head of Environment Information Australia will be independent. They will have a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to the minister and to the public. They will be able to report on trends in the environment transparently, something that I know there has been a little bit of commentary on. They will report in collaboration with our nation's top experts, scientists and First Nations people to produce the tracking and data we need. This was another of the key recommendations of the Samuel review. For years to come, this will mean Australia can no longer hide the truth about nature, just like the previous government did time after time. Macnamara is home to 44 species listed as threatened. The Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve—which I'm very proud to have helped secure millions of dollars of funding for—is something that we are building, and it will be home to many of those threatened species. We need more places in our cities and urban areas that provide sanctuaries for our precious wildlife. I've been pleased to bring a number of ministers to the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve, including the minister for the environment, the minister for infrastructure and many other ministers as well. If anyone has an opportunity to come and have a walk through this incredible piece of Elwood, I highly recommend you do so. It is going to be an iconic part of the inner Bayside suburbs of Melbourne. In conclusion, this bill is about improving compliance with environmental law. It is the second of the tranches in our environmental protection laws. The first, obviously, was the water trigger that we did last year. This is the EPA, and the next tranche will be a significant package of reforms in line with our election commitments around other recommendations of the Samuel review. We have a record of improving environmental standards. This bill complies with and builds on that record. I am proud of the environmental protections that are contained in this bill, and I commend them to the House. 13:21 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar There is no doubt that our environment is in a perilous state, and no-one has acknowledged this more clearly than the current Minister for the Environment and Water. In the most recent state of the environment report, it stated that 19 of Australia's ecosystems are on the brink of collapse. Much to the shame of the previous coalition government, in 2021 they hid this report from the public. In December 2022, over 18 months ago now, the current environment minister committed to a landmark overhaul of Australia's environment laws, something that was strongly welcomed across my electorate of Mackellar. In making that commitment, the minister stated: 'Australia's environment laws are broken. Nature is being destroyed. Our reforms are seeking to turn the tide in this country—from nature destruction to nature repair.' Unfortunately, very little has changed in terms of the state of the environment since then. We continue to watch on as our native forests, including critical habitats for threatened species, continue to be clear-felled. We have witnessed the largest and worst ever bleaching of our Great Barrier Reef, and land continues to be logged for farmland at a rate that leaves us being a global deforestation hotspot. There are changes to our broken environment laws that simply cannot wait any longer. It was, therefore, extremely disappointing that the government recently announced that it would be back-pedalling on its commitment to address the environmental catastrophe in this term of government. Specifically, in April this year, the government announced it was changing course by creating the previously unarticulated concept of three stages of nature reform. Stage 1 involved retrospectively labelling one small change to the environment laws that occurred in December—an expansion of the water trigger. Again, it was something very welcome, but it was retrospectively labelled as stage 1 of the reforms. This was one small change that the government was pushed into, forced to do, when it needed to offer a carrot in the Senate to ensure the passage of the nature repair market legislation. I'm very proud of the role that I played in advocating this change through the introduction of my private member's bill for the water trigger to be expanded. It was expanded so that all types of gas fracking projects now need to be referred for assessment under the EPBC Act if there is likely to be a significant impact on water resources. We are watching and waiting to see if this is actually going to occur in terms of what is happening with gas fracking projects in the Beetaloo basin currently. Stage 2 is the nature-positive bills, which establish two new bodies: Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia, which are the subject of the current debate. I'll talk more about these in a moment, but neither of these bills enact any changes to the broken environment laws themselves. Stage 3 seems to be everything else, including the substantive changes to the environment laws promised to be passed by this government in this term of government. Here we are talking about the introduction of national environmental standards, improvements to conservation planning and changes to assessment and approval pathways—in other words, the bulk of the necessary reforms. This will be the most important part of the nature-positive reforms, and the government has given us no assurance that they will be passed in this term of government as initially promised. However, back to stage 2, which we are currently debating. With the bills before the House, the government proposes to establish the Environment Protection Australia agency, the nation's first federal environment protection agency. It will also establish the Environment Information Australia body, tasked with monitoring and measuring our progress towards becoming nature positive. Establishing an EPA is undoubtedly positive and long overdue, and I strongly welcome and commend this move by the government. The environment movement has been calling for a strong regulation and enforcement agency now for decades. Unfortunately, however, the version that the government is proposing with this bill will not create the effective, independent or fit-for-purpose EPA that is required to effectively protect our environment. It is instead a significantly flawed proposal and must be strengthened here in this legislation if the Australian public is to be able to trust that it will both be effective and truly act in alignment with the public interests and expectations to protect Australia's environment. We need to be able to trust that it will act in the public interest rather than in the interest of powerful lobby groups. And it must be strengthened now in this current legislation, which is setting it up. Under the government's bill, the EPA will be headed up by a CEO which will be selected by the minister—appointed by the minister. However, environment groups across the country have made clear that the EPA must be set up in a way that permits it to have far greater independence from the government of the day. That is why it is critical that the EPA be a board and one based not only on expertise and quality but also on independence from government. This means that appointments to the board must be made by an independent selection panel, not at the discretion of the minister. Appointments made at the discretion of the minister would leave the EPA open to political influence and, therefore, pressure from powerful lobby groups. It is absolutely critical that we do everything we can to end this jobs-for-mates culture in Canberra and the politicisation of these important institutions and bodies. The EPA must also have a well-defined mandate and objective, and its decisions must be transparent. Ultimately, the EPA's functions must enable and ensure nature protection, and it must do so immediately in stage 2 with no further delay. Most critically, the EPA must be responsible for overseeing and assessing regional forestry agreements. Native forest logging undertaken under these agreements is currently exempt from federal environment oversight, completely exempt from our national environment laws. This absolutely must change if the government is to keep its promise of no further extinctions on its watch. I will be bringing amendments to this legislation which would bring an end to the exemptions of regional forestry agreements. Let's look at an example of the destructive conduct which is happening right now and which is perfectly permitted and legal under our current broken environmental laws. This is the clearing of trees, inseparable, of course, from any attempts to protect our threatened species. Over the course of this year and last, in one example only, more than 670 hectares of land was bulldozed in a region not far from Gladstone in Queensland. That land was cleared for beef pasture but with an area that was mapped as habitat for 37 EPBC listed species, including the koala, the northern quoll and the greater glider. In addition, in 2023, over 270 hectares were bulldozed in the Banana shire—again for beef pasture. It had been mapped as habitat for 45 EPBC listed species, including the ones I listed above. These areas of land were able to be cleared through a continuous land-use exemption under the current EPBC Act— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 48 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Pacific Region 48 13:30 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Tomorrow I will have the distinct pleasure of launching the Asia-Pacific Development Diplomacy and Defence Dialogue's paper about the importance of youth, civil society and media in the Pacific. If there's one thing I agree on with the Prime Minister it's the fact that Australia is the Pacific nations' partner of choice. Indeed, the opposition leader said so in a similar line just yesterday. I first want to thank everyone involved in delivering this report, particularly the executive director, Melissa Conley Tyler, and express my appreciation to AP4D for the valuable work it does in providing that platform, which is so important for experts from a range of sectors to share insights. We live in very challenging times in the Pacific—we know that. Multiple dynamics are at play in the region: climate, economic disruption, changes in demography and geopolitical competition all have the potential to significantly impact upon our region. It's a very contested space. This paper, to be released tomorrow, is the culmination of many months of consultations with experts right across the region, and I very much look forward to helping to launch it. Australia and the Pacific share a vision for a peaceful, resilient and prosperous region. It's too important not to share that vision. Securing this future for the blue Pacific can't be left to chance; it requires long-term vision, strategy and commitment, and I was so pleased that this week we hosted Solomon Islands Prime Minister, Jeremiah Manele. Werriwa Electorate: Liverpool City Council 48 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Yesterday, Liverpool council's Liberal mayor and Liberal councillors reaffirmed their decision to dismiss the CEO, the Hon. John Ajaka. This decision follows a series of chaotic events which led to the Minister for Local Government of New South Wales launching an investigation into Liverpool's council several weeks ago—amongst other things, about handling of staff matters. But the mayor used his casting vote, not waiting for the inquiry to report. Today, however, I do wish to pay tribute to Mr Ajaka's time at Liverpool council. I had forged a good relationship with Mr Ajaka through our shared aspirations for the betterment of our city. I know that Mr Ajaka was working to improve our city; to support council staff, who he cared for deeply; and to make Liverpool the powerhouse in the region it should rightfully be. I believe there will be ongoing legal argument about this decision—disappointingly, because it will cost the ratepayers dearly again. The changing of the CEO is not an insignificant matter; it can impact on the effectiveness of a council and cost ratepayers money in payout for legal fees and stalled decision-making. Our parks are overgrown, our roads are plagued by potholes and our streets are littered with rubbish. I'm hoping the elections in September restore a functional council; ratepayers deserve no less. Lindsay Electorate: Penrith Women's Health Centre 49 13:33 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Penrith Women's Health Centre recently found out that their MUSTER program's federal funding would not be renewed by the Albanese Labor government. They provide critical domestic violent support to women across Penrith, the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains. It's pretty outrageous, given the ongoing domestic violence issues we are having in this country. Nepean Police Area Command, which has stations in Penrith and St Marys, sees some of the highest rates of domestic violence reported in New South Wales. I have written to the Minister for Social Services and the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, and am awaiting an outcome. Today, Senator Kerrynne Liddle, the shadow minister for child protection, and I met with Penrith Women's Health Centre and we spoke about this very important issue. The CEO is having to stand down a staff member tomorrow because there is no more funding left. This could mean the organisation will have to reduce its casework by 30 per cent. There are vulnerable women who won't be able to seek out and receive support; women wanting to flee unhealthy relationships who won't be given the support they need. Mothers with children may not have that vital conversation which could lead to them leaving a violent partner. Penrith Women's Health Centre is a great local organisation that assists so many women across the Lindsay community and into the Hawkesbury and beyond. Minister, please put the money back on the table for the Penrith Women's Health Centre. Refugees and Asylum Seekers 49 13:34 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Last week was National Refugee Week, a time to raise awareness of refugee issues and celebrate the rich contributions refugees make to Australia. My parents came here from Egypt 50 years ago. They escaped a region where conflict was the norm and opportunities were limited, and they sought a better life. Since being elected, it's been important to me to assist those seeking security, safety and new beginnings. I've always advocated, whether in opposition or in government, for Australia to be ambitious in support of asylum seekers and refugees because they make an incredible contribution to this country. Welcoming refugees to Australia is not only the right thing from a humanitarian perspective but it also helps to enrich our community and build our strong economy. That's why my team and I have assisted so many refugees and asylum seekers in my community of Wills. I have met hundreds on TPVs and SHEVs, and heard their stories. Many have lived in Australia for over 10 years, and despite working, paying taxes and running successful businesses that employ other Australians, many have been left unable to obtain a loan or purchase a home, and they struggle to expand their business, travel or pursue further education. The previous government failed this cohort, despite being found to be refugees requiring our protection. The Albanese Labor government has abolished the cruelty of TPVs as a priority—something I have long championed—and made these people's lives better so that they now can become Australians in the true sense of the word as well as in the contribution that they've already made to this country. Energy 49 13:36 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong We are in the middle of the greatest economic transformation of our lifetimes. Businesses have made it clear that to unlock the tens of billions of dollars this country needs to transition to a net zero economy, we need a constant and unwavering commitment from the government to see this through. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of jobs are on the line. Tens of billions of dollars of investment is ready to go, but it needs policy certainty. Business and investor peak bodies say that the next five years will determine our prosperity for the next five decades. But today our economic transformation is in great peril. The coalition has wilfully and recklessly jammed a stick into the spokes of the Australian economy by refusing to reveal a 2030 emissions reduction target and by confusing the country with an embarrassingly underdeveloped and economically destabilising nuclear policy. It we lose investor confidence, billions of investment dollars will go overseas and we will not see them again. Australia risks becoming a bad place to do business. Instead, we must become a clean energy superpower. The coalition must stop appeasing climate sceptics in its party and it has to stop jeopardising investor confidence in our energy transition. Kenya 50 13:37 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I was alarmed and dismayed to see the reports this week of the storming of the Kenyan parliament by protesters. At least 23 people have lost their lives in the protests and scores more have been injured. Politicians were evacuated from the parliament before police were able to regain control. A little under two years ago, I attended that very magnificent building and met with the then Kenyan foreign affairs cabinet secretary, Dr Alfred Mutua, as part of a cross-parliamentary delegation with Save the Children. We all defend without reservation the right of people in a democracy to peaceful protest. The storming of a parliament, however, is fundamentally undemocratic. I feel for the representatives of the Kenyan parliament, who would have been terrified in those circumstances. I saw a lot of good work being done in Kenya but also a great deal of hardship. I know that the Kenyan members of parliament go to work every day, just as we do, to try and create a better future for their citizens. The regular, predictable and safe administration of the parliament and the executive is only possible if every one of us upholds and cherishes the institutions and mores upon which a parliamentary democracy finds its footing. Democracy isn't a static thing, but a living organism that needs to be nurtured and maintained. We must always try to pass on a better, more robust democracy to the next generation. I send my best wishes to the members of the Kenyan parliament. Tertiary Education 50 13:39 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The amount of student debt that is currently sitting in my electorate of Brisbane is $1.1 billion. This is a debt people are sitting on just for getting an education. When we're in the middle of a skills shortage and when over 50 per cent of jobs in the future will need a university degree, it makes absolutely no sense to be financially punishing people for going through higher education. A university degree is quickly becoming an expectation of employers in the same way a higher school certificate was just a few years ago. More and more employers expect prospective workers to have gone through higher education and to have specialised their skills. We're charging people tens of thousands of dollars for qualifications we as a society now expect them to have. It makes absolutely no sense, and it has to change. We need to think big, and we need to be bold. It's what the future demands of us. We need to catch up with so many other countries in the world by finally making university tuition free again and wiping all student debt. We can do this. We've actually done it before. University used to be tuition free before Labor introduced the student debt system. This would free millions of Australians from billions of dollars in debt. It would increase their take-home pay. It would allow more people the opportunity to buy a home. And it would improve the mental health of people, especially young people, by removing the massive debts hanging over their heads. Adelaide Fringe Festival 50 13:40 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today I'm delighted to talk about the tremendous results released this week in the Adelaide Fringe Festival's Adelaide Fringe 2024 impactreport. As most people know, The Fringe is held in Adelaide every year. The Fringe has played a pivotal role in the cultural and economic identity of South Australia since its inception. The impact report highlights remarkable milestones for the 2024 festival, with the Fringe having been held between February and March over the past decade. The Fringe has enjoyed extraordinary growth and impact and is solidifying its status as a world-leading arts festival. The impact report states that it has had a total economic impact of $149 million, doubling 2014's $66.3 million. There has been $121 million in new money brought to South Australia in this year alone, compared to $18 million in 2014. There were 13,553 jobs created, which is a sevenfold increase from 2014. We had 306,318 visitor nights, up from 61,000 in 2014. That's a fivefold increase. The wellbeing value is $52 million. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Heather Croall, who has served as Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Adelaide Fringe Festival since 2015. For those members of this House who haven't been to the Fringe Festival, I invite you to come along to next year's. It is a great event and a fantastic opportunity, and it showcases events and artists from all over the world. Cost of Living 50 13:42 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders Yesterday, Australia's inflation rate rose from 3.6 per cent to four per cent. I'm tired of Labor's self-aggrandisement, their reference to the fundamentals and an imagined, oft-repeated prospect of a soft landing. There is nothing soft about what my constituents are feeling. An interest rate rise later this year is now a firm and realistic probability. Already those with mortgages are paying on average $25,000 a year more in interest repayments. Each month, it gets harder for Australians to pay the bills and make ends meet. Each month under this Albanese government, simple goods and services are priced beyond the means of the average pay packet. Since the election, vegetable oil is up 28 per cent. Insurance is up 27 per cent. Pet food is up 16 per cent. Chicken is up 10 per cent. And cheese is up by 23 per cent. Cakes cost 19 per cent more. Jam costs 11 per cent more. Soft drinks cost 14 per cent more. Takeaway food costs 15 per cent more. Spirits cost 14 per cent more. Ice cream costs 17 per cent more. Cereal is up by 20 per cent. Eggs are up by 22 per cent. Milk costs 19 per cent more than before. Seeing a doctor or dentist is up by 11 per cent. Stationery is up by 15 per cent. Spare parts for your car are up 18 per cent. Books are up 10 per cent. Hairdressing is up 14 per cent. Postage and parcels are up 21 per cent. As we approach the school holidays, family travel in Australia is up by 19 per cent, and overseas travel is up by 37 per cent. I see it every week. People are doing it tough.       13:43 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite It is four days until 1 July, and that means it's four days until every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut—all 13.6 million of them. It's four days until our $300 energy bill relief begins, and it's four days until 2.6 million low-paid workers get their third consecutive pay rise backed in by this government, because we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. This isn't the beginning of our cost-of-living help, and it's certainly not the end. We're strengthening Medicare, continuing the freeze on the cost of PBS medicines. We're building more homes more quickly and helping put downward pressure on rents in the regions. And we're adding two weeks of additional government-funded paid parental leave. We're also delivering HECS relief for everyone with student debt, from the university student in Torquay to the supermarket worker in Grovedale to the nurse in Waurn Ponds. And we're strengthening the food and grocery code to get better deals for farmers and fairer prices for consumers. Under the Albanese government, more Australians are working, more Australians are earning more and more Australians will keep more of what they earn. Nuclear Energy 51 13:45 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Of the advice of two Homers, there's one that the Labor Party should have taken and the one that they did take. The Greek poet Homer said: 'Words empty as the wind are best left unsaid.' Unfortunately, those opposite didn't take that advice. They went with the Simpsons character, Homer Simpson. And what have they done around nuclear? We've seen the three-eyed fish memes. We've seen the cartoons. We've seen all these things around cartoon characters, but we've seen nothing about facts—and the Australian people want to hear that conversation. But what else did Homer Simpson say? I'll provide another quote, suitably adjusted for the parliament. Homer said, 'I didn't tell a mistruth. I was writing fiction with my mouth.' Unfortunately, those opposite continue to do it. The $275 reduction in power prices—haven't seen it. Lower the cost of living—it's gone up. No changes to super—that didn't happen. But what did happen is that they've driven up the cost of living, they've driven up rents and they've driven up interest rates. We have seen inflation continue. It's now at four per cent. Those opposite should actually take the advice of the Greek poet. They should give up on The Simpsons. For the Australian people, that is going down like a brick-and-tyre glider: it is going to hit rock bottom. In the Iliad, Homer said, and this is good advice for all of those opposite, particularly the minister for energy: 'Even a fool learns something once it hits him.' Hunter Electorate: Cost of Living 51 13:46 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I understand that times are tough at the moment for many. But, when I walk around the streets each and every day in my electorate, I know that the cost-of-living relief that is coming in four days will really make a difference in the Hunter. Last week I was speaking to Aaron, a customer at Burgerfiend, home of the delicious Cheeky Fiend burger, and he said that the $300 energy rebate will be a massive help for his family, and they might even be able to enjoy a burger or two more often. On the weekend I was having a beer at 4 Pines brewery, and I spoke to Jack, who said that the tax cuts mean that he will be able to enjoy a beer a little more often, and I think Phil the publican was very happy to hear that too. When I was walking down the streets in Muswellbrook on Thursday, Joy told me how much of a difference cheaper medicines are going to make for her and her husband, who are on a pension. Everywhere I go, I speak to people about the cost of living, and they know that what this government is doing will really make a difference in their lives. It's the little things in life that make all the difference. It's about having that extra money in your pocket to be able to take the edge off the bills. It's about having that extra spare change to have a beer with your mates or enjoy a good burger or two. That's what we're delivering to Australians. I'm really looking forward, on 1 July, to making sure that the people of the Hunter and all over Australia know how much the Labor government cares about them and cares about their families—to give them a better future when we're going through these cost-of-living battles that we're struggling with now. We know they're doing it tough, and that's why we've done this. That's why we're really making a difference and trying to move Australia forward. Energy 52 13:48 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Earlier this week the Prime Minister confirmed that Labor's energy policy is the Integrated System Plan. The very next day, that plan was released, and here's what it tells us. Firstly, the total cost of Labor's system plan remains a secret because they haven't costed big projects like Snowy 2.0, CopperString, behind-the-meter solutions or even distribution upgrades—quite extraordinary. Secondly, we know from Labor's plan that they want to have a premature closure of base-load power stations, pushing 90 per cent of Australia's base-load power—24/7 power—out of the grid within 10 years. This is why the lights are going out. Thirdly, we now know that Labor's 82 per cent renewables plan is even more unachievable. They need to install seven gigawatts of new generation every single year until 2030. Last year, 1.3 gigawatts reached financial close. It just won't be done. Labor's plan, we know, is putting all eggs in one basket. It's renewables only. It is going to leave Australians poorer and our nation weaker. The coalition, on the other hand, believes in a balanced mix of technologies: renewables, gas and, as coal retires from the system, zero emissions nuclear energy. Parramatta Electorate: Heritage Infrastructure 52 13:49 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta As the second-oldest city in Australia, the history of Parramatta is also the history of our nation. Just north of Parramatta's CBD sits one of Australia's most significant heritage assets, the Parramatta Female Factory. Established in the 1820s, this precinct was home to thousands of female convicts and vulnerable girls. But, today, this site is under threat from encroaching developments. Last year we added this site to Australia's UNESCO World Heritage tentative list, but there's more we need to do. We need to stop building around the Parramatta Female Factory and push for UNESCO World Heritage listing as soon as possible. East of Parramatta's CBD is the heritage precinct that encompasses Elizabeth Farm, Hambledon Cottage and Experiment Farm. It was from these buildings that some of Australia's first crops were sprouted and where Australia's merino wool industry started. For over 200 years these buildings have been remarkably preserved, thanks to dedicated local volunteers and activists. But now they face a new threat. A proposed development of high-rise apartments, up to eight storeys tall, threatens to loom over these national treasures. There's never been a more important time to act. We need to stop the Gregory Place development and protect these sites with national heritage listing. Casey Electorate: 2024 Casey Volunteer and Community Awards 52 13:51 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Volunteers are the backbone of Casey and are the glue that holds our community together. We are so fortunate to have such strong community spirit across the Yarra Ranges. The magnitude of their impact was evident, as over 300 people gathered for my 2024 Casey Volunteer and Community Awards. I was proud to recognise 52 individuals and 20 community groups during my annual awards ceremony at the Life Ministry Centre. It was an honour to be able to celebrate the hard work of so many local volunteers and groups who give so much without ever asking for anything in return. These volunteers and community groups are incredible people who go above and beyond. They care for others, create strong townships, preserve local history, look after our environment, organise community events and support each other in need. Thank you to another amazing volunteer, Nola Sharp of the Lilydale and Wandin Toastmasters, for officiating the awards ceremony. And a special shout out to Jules and her wonderful team at Tasty Az for the delicious morning tea. We are a strong community in Casey, and we are so fortunate to have so many people giving their time to make our community even stronger. It is my honour to be their local voice here in parliament. I'll always back our local volunteers. Cost of Living 52 13:52 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke This morning, the Liberal shadow minister for home affairs appeared on Sky News to discuss fiscal recklessness. Kudos to Sky News for getting him on, because I can't think of a more qualified group of people to talk about fiscal recklessness than the Liberal Party opposite. After all, it was the Liberals who oversaw the accumulation of a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, deliberately suppressed wage growth for a decade and who presided over the worst decade of productivity in over half a century. Now it's the Liberals in opposition trying to goad the Reserve Bank into more rate rises, to put more pressure on Australian households, to serve their own political interests. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has said, 'People are talking about one or two more interest rate increases.' 'People'—these people are mostly members of the Liberal Party with an Angus-esque grasp on economic reality. While the Liberals opposite are plotting economic pain for Australians, the Albanese Labor government is getting on with delivering responsible economic relief to household budgets. From next week, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut, a saving of an average of 1,500 bucks per person per year. From next week, every Australian household will start receiving $300 in power bill relief. From next week, minimum wage earners will receive a pay rise of 3.75 per cent—nearly $150 a week for full-time workers. The Albanese Labor government's economic plan is putting downward pressure on inflation and providing cost-of-living relief. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. (Time expired) Cost of Living 53 13:54 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Colleagues, in a few moments the PM will come to the dispatch box and tell Australians they've never had it better. The truth is, colleagues, that Australians are hurting. Australians know it. I know it. You know it. Guess who else knows it? The Prime Minister's backbench. They know it. That's why, when the Prime Minister or the Treasurer get on to telling Australians how good they've had it and how grateful they should be for their service to the nation, the backbenchers get their phones out. They slink away, and, secretly, that little campaigner in the back of their head says, 'Please make the pain stop; make it stop,' because food is up 11 per cent, housing 14 per cent, rent 14 per cent and gas 22 per cent. Health is up as well. It all adds up to a headline inflation rate of 4.4 per cent. It's homegrown, core inflation at four per cent. Why do we have that? We have that because we have a weak PM who's out of touch. He needs to get out of the Lodge and off his private jet and talk to Australians who are hurting. The late Bob Hawke would be ashamed of this Prime Minister. He'd be out there talking to Australians. He wouldn't be coming in here telling Australians that are hurting that they've never had it better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Barker, just a reminder: I am not deaf, and you are yelling immensely. I give the call to the member for Spence. Taxation 53 13:55 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Thank you, Deputy Speaker. You may not be deaf, but I think I am. Today is the last sitting day before the celebration of a new financial year, mainly by the accountants and tax professionals in the community. To them, happy new year! The upcoming financial year will be a big one. It'll be known as the year of the tax cut. With the new financial year on Monday 1 July, there will undoubtedly be many more people out in the community with more reasons to celebrate. Those people include 100 per cent of all Australian taxpayers, who will be receiving a tax cut—not some but all. That's 13.6 million taxpayers. This is especially true for the 84 per cent of taxpayers, or 91 per cent in Spence, who will be receiving an even bigger tax cut because the Albanese Labor government fought for them to be able to keep more of what they earn. Just four more sleeps to go. 'It's the final countdown.' Both the chorus and the iconic riff from that song have been stuck in my head from the moment I started writing this. I only partly apologise to anyone else who will now end up sharing the same fate. As we all know, there are much worse fates to be had. Fates like having the Liberal and National coalition with the opposition leader, the member for Dickson, at the helm, with an energy policy that's more nuclear fizzer than nuclear fission and wanting Australians to work more and earn less. I'm proud to be on this side of the chamber fighting for Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Services Australia 53 13:57 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Labor's recent budget is inflationary and includes too much reckless and unnecessary spending, such as $24 billion on 36,000 additional public servants. Of those, 7½ thousand will be at Services Australia, but the fact is that Services Australia's headcount has already increased under Labor, yet service levels have got worse. The staffing level in February 2024 of 28,570 is almost 2,000 more than in 2021-22. Yet, service levels have collapsed. If you apply for a low-income card today, it takes 59 days to be processed compared to 16 days under the coalition. If you apply for the aged pension, it takes 84 days compared to 33 days under the coalition. If you apply for dad and partner pay, it takes 51 days compared to 20 under the coalition. If you call up Services Australia to find out what's going on, you'll wait a very long time. If you call the older Australians line, you'll wait on average 46 minutes and 39 seconds, compared to 21½ minutes under us. The average wait on the Employment Services line is 50 minutes and 40 seconds against 24 minutes under us. There are more staff at more cost, yet dramatically worse service levels. Who is the genius who delivered this? It's the member for Maribyrnong. Taxation 53 13:58 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The Liberal Party is reckless and deceptive. They care little of the struggles of the working people of this country, and they seek to widen inequality and squander opportunity. Under their decade-long rule, our families, our businesses and our communities suffered and were left to shoulder the burden of Liberal economic and financial mismanagement and negligence. With the election of the Labor government, we were able to begin the colossal task of cleaning up their mess. We are a party, a government, with experience, knowledge and understanding of how the economy works and functions and a movement bound in the understanding that we must make the economy work for us and not the other way around. And that's why on 1 July, only a few days away, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. That's 13.6 million Australians, and in Robertson that is 66,000 taxpayers. This is a plan for tax reform and tax relief. This is alongside the major cost-of-living policies and initiatives that the Albanese Labor government has introduced: cheaper child care, tripling the bulk-billing incentive, making medications cheaper and rolling out Medicare urgent care clinics. That is what a strong, capable government does: it supports its people when times are tough and looks forward into the future. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 54 CONDOLENCES Cheng, Ms Yixuan, Darchia, Ms Pikria, Good, Ms Ashlee, Singleton, Ms Dawn, Tahir, Mr Faraz, Young, Ms Jade 54 Report from Federation Chamber 54 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 54 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Core inflation, the Reserve Bank's preferred measure, is at 4.4 per cent, the highest level this year. Our core inflation is higher than that of Sweden, the UK, Norway, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Euro area, the US and Switzerland. Since December, core inflation has fallen in these economies, but in Australia it has increased because of Labor's reckless spending and three failed budgets. Prime Minister, why do Australians have to live in fear of yet another rate rise under this hopeless government? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about inflation. I'm asked about international comparisons on inflation. The RBA governor has completely contradicted the Leader of the Opposition's declaration as part of that rhetorical question where he said that it was Labor's budgets that were having an impact. The truth is that what the RBA governor has said very clearly is that fiscal policy has been running a surplus for the last couple of years, so I would say that's been helping the inflation situation, if anything. It's a direct quote from the RBA governor. Indeed, I think the shadow finance minister, Senator Hume, has said that the things that cause inflation are not of Labor's making. That's what their shadow finance minister had to say. Of course, that's consistent with the reality of what has happened. I'm asked about international comparisons. Australia has faster economic growth than Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK in the G7. We have a lower unemployment rate than Canada, France, Italy and the UK. We have faster employment growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and the UK. We have a higher participation rate than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and the UK, and Australia is the only one with a budget surplus along with the smallest gross debt. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 55 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Long, Professor Georgina, AO, Scolyer, Professor Richard, AO 55 14:03 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Corangamite, I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are Australians of the Year Professor Georgina Long AO and Professor Richard Scolyer AO. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a very warm welcome to the parliament and to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 55 14:04 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What is the Albanese Labor government's approach to lowering energy bills after a decade of failed policies? How is this different from other approaches? 14:04 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question. This is the last sitting day before the Albanese government's $300 in bill relief starts next Monday. It is the last sitting day before every Australian receives a tax cut as well. Everybody with an energy bill is getting energy relief and everybody with a tax bill is getting a tax cut delivered by the Albanese government. We are also getting on with the job in the longer term of delivering renewable energy, as was outlined yesterday by AEMO in the integrated systems plan, a detailed, modelled, considered plan for Australia's future, with all the implications, all the details there. Of course, that is not all. The budget also included measures to help Australians change to lower bills with one click and also to ensure that they are not rolled over onto more expensive bills automatically without their knowledge. These are important reforms to help Australians with cost of living. The honourable member asked me what other policies we have rejected? I read that bipartisan respected commentator Peta Credlin in The Australian this morning pointing out—arguing—that the Leader of the Opposition has turned the energy debate on its head. She said, 'Dutton turns energy debate on its head'. I have to say, I don't always agree with Peta Credlin but I thought she hit the nail on the head this morning, because the Leader of the Opposition has turned the energy debate on its head by arguing that the way to reduce bills is to introduce the most expensive form of energy available—nuclear. I thought, 'Yes, that is a fair call.' There is a debate between commentators. You have Rod Sims, who argues nuclear energy will push power bills up by $200 year. You have Professor Dargaville, who argues it will be $1,000 a year. The Leader of the Opposition could clear it up by releasing his policies and costings. It is 15 weeks since the Leader of the Opposition said he would release the details of his policy 'in a couple of weeks'. It has been 15 weeks and all we have is a map with seven sites, six of which the owners have said they don't want nuclear and five of which are in states with a nuclear ban, so this is all going swimmingly. The Leader of the Opposition has also turned the debate on its head by arguing for large nuclear reactors, which just a year ago he said he was deadset opposed to and wouldn't have a bar of. He has also turned the energy debate on its head by arguing that the way to ensure reliability in the short-term is through a form of energy that can't be introduced for 20 years. He has also turned the debate on its head by arguing that small modular reactors issue one Coke can worth of waste a year, when it is actually 12,500 Coke cans worth of waste a year. If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand the details of the policies he is announcing, how could he be trusted to implement them? If the Leader of the Opposition is not across the detail, how could he run this country? It just underlines again that he is the biggest risk to Australia's energy and economic future that this nation faces. The SPEAKER 53517 There is far too much noise. The member for O'Connor was consistently interjecting during that answer. He shall cease interjecting immediately and he is now warned. The member for Hume has the call. Economy 55 14:07 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the Reserve Bank governor said, 'We need a lot to go our way if we are going to bring inflation down.' She also said 'the narrow path is getting narrower'. On the back of Labor's third failed budget, core inflation has jumped up to 4.4 per cent and market interest rates have risen sharply. Prime Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for Labor's economic failures? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting before the Prime Minister begins his answer. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, not to the Treasurer—he seems immune. There is a force field around this Treasurer; that is how bad his budgets have been. We have sat now for four weeks after the budget. In budget week we had no questions to the Treasurer; that was how good the budget was. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Bowman is showing complete disrespect with those sorts of remarks. We have had this debate already. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Bowman then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 It is a budget, as the Reserve Bank governor has acknowledged—quite rightly—that actually brought in a surplus. I know that is a foreign land to those over there. They have never seen a surplus; they have never visited it. They did buy a ticket. They even got the souvenir mugs, but all they produced was merch. We have produced lower debt as a result of turning the $78 billion deficit we inherited into a $22 billion surplus. We know that inflation is lower than it was when we came to office, and we know that inflation peaked in that March quarter at 2.1 per cent—the highest it has been for a very long period of time. What we have done is make sure our measures to provide that cost-of-living support are designed in a way that will continue to put that downward pressure on inflation. That's why our Energy Price Relief Plan, just like the last one we introduced, which had an effect of reducing inflation—that's why we've designed it that way. That's why we've designed fee-free TAFE that way as well—to make a difference. We make no apologies for the fact that more Australians than they wanted will get a tax cut next week. We make no apologies for the fact that everyone in this room here, in this chamber, will get $4,500 less than they were going to get under their plan, and we have ensured that those people who are doing it tough will get a crack. Next Monday they will get a benefit, even if they are earning under $45,000 a year—something those opposite said they'd oppose before they even saw it. Then they said they'd reverse it, and then they called for an election to be held on it. If they're so hostile to it, why did they vote for it? They don't talk about that. We are determined to make a difference. We want an economy that works for people, not the other way around. That's why all our cost-of-living measures are designed in a way to assist the economy and to lower inflation. (Time expired) Cost of Living 56 14:11 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ease cost-of-living pressures on Australians, and what approaches have been rejected? 14:12 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Because of the member for Aston's efforts and because of this government, every single taxpayer in Aston will get a tax cut on Monday. The average tax cut in Aston will be $29 a week, and because of the changes we made in the budget 87 per cent of your constituents will get a bigger tax cut than they would have got before. This is all about the government's efforts to ensure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. We see decent wages as part of the solution to cost-of-living pressures, not part of the problem. New analysis today shows average weekly full-time earnings have gone up $119 a week under this Prime Minister and under this government; they now sit at around $98,000 a year. Since the election full-time earnings have grown on average 4.4 per cent—nearly double what we saw under the wasted decade of those opposite. Every single taxpayer gets a tax cut on Monday, but the average full-time worker gets $41 a week from Monday. If the same worker had the same wages growth we saw under those opposite and the skewed tax cuts they put forward, that same worker would be $50 worse off each week were it not for our efforts to turn wages around and to give people a decent tax cut to help with the cost of living. Under Labor, people are earning more and will keep more as well. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 But that's not where it ends. On Monday every taxpayer gets a tax cut. Every household gets energy bill relief. Millions of Australian workers on an award will get a pay rise from Monday as well. There will be cheaper medicines from Monday, and there will also be two more weeks of paid parental leave for new parents. This is how you deliver cost-of-living relief—not by pushing up prices with more expensive nuclear reactors, which is the approach of those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The monthly inflation data we got yesterday is a timely reminder of why it is so important that we provide this substantial but responsible cost-of-living relief. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It's also why it's so important, as the Prime Minister said a moment ago, that we have turned two big Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses. As the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said, that is helping in the fight against inflation. You can't ease cost-of-living pressures with nuclear reactors or the sort of nasty negativity we hear from those opposite. You do it with tax cuts, you do it with energy bill relief and with decent wages and you do it with cheaper medicines as well, and those things are precisely what Australians can expect from Monday next week. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Churchill Trust Fellows, Australian Blind Football Team, G21 Geelong Region Alliance, Shenton College Students 57 14:14 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to acknowledge some special guests in the gallery. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are eight fellows from the Churchill Trust. I am also advised that members of the Australian Blind Football Team, the Bilbies, are with us today and members of the G21 Geelong Region Alliance from the City of Greater Geelong, Surf Coast Shire, Borough of Queenscliffe, Golden Plains Shire and Colac Otway Shire which are in the member for Corangamite and the Deputy Prime Minister's electorates. Finally, we have year 9 students from Shenton College in the gallery with us today from the electorate of Curtin. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Early Childhood Education 57 14:15 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is for the Minister for Education. One of the biggest cost-of-living pressures facing families in Wentworth is early childhood education. In my pop-up office last week, several mums told me that childcare costs were affecting their decision to work or even have a second child. Last year's increase in the Child Care Subsidy were welcome, but families are still struggling, even those who are relatively well paid. Childcare centres have told me that bureaucracy is adding complexity and costs to their centres. What will the government do to make early childhood education more affordable and less bureaucratic for childcare workers? 14:16 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I'd also like to recognise in the gallery Georgina Long and Richard Scolyer, both Australians of the Year, as well as Matthew Brown, the chief executive officer of the Melanoma Institute. They are great Australians and people who I'm privileged to call friends. To the member for Wentworth, just like universal Medicare is a national asset and our universal superannuation system is a national asset, we want to build a universal early education and care system that can be a national asset for this country. You asked about affordability. Come Monday, it will be one year since our cheaper child care laws came into effect and they have cut the cost of child care for more than a million Australian families. To give you an example, a family on, say, $120,000 a year combined income with one child in care three days a week, has paid over the last year $2,000 less in childcare bills than they otherwise would have had to pay because of the cheaper child care laws that we've put in place. In addition to that, I can tell you that come Monday that same family will get a tax cut of about $2,000 as well. That's real cost-of-living relief. What I can also tell you is this: since we came to government, there are more children in child care—60,000 more; here are more child care centres—700 more; and there are more childcare workers and educators—30,000 more. But we need more and we need to do more. That's why the Treasurer announced in the budget a provision for pay increases for childcare workers. I can advise the member that we will shortly receive the work of Professor Deborah Brennan from the University of New South Wales and the Productivity Commission to help us to take the next step to chart a course to develop a truly universal early education and care system. Cost of Living 58 14:18 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Prime Minister. What additional cost-of-living support will the Albanese Labor government deliver to help Australians from 1 July and what measures have been rejected because they would drive up the cost of living? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Pearce for her question. I've always said that we're not just here to occupy the space; we're here to make a difference to people's lives. On Monday, we'll be making more of a positive difference to more Australians' lives, with a tax cut for every taxpayer, $300 in power bill relief for every household, freezing the cost of PBS medicines and a pay rise for 2.6 million workers on award wages. We want people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. There'll also be an extra two weeks of government paid parental leave, which will make a difference for people like Caitlin, a youth worker employed in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. She has a two-year-old daughter in child care. As a result of Labor's tax cuts and the pay rise for award wage workers, Caitlin will be $3,584 a year better off. That's on top of the help she received over the past year with cheaper child care. It will make a difference to people like Helen. Helen's a single mum with a 12-year-old daughter. She's a retail worker employed by Coles. Our changes and the pay rise will mean that she will be $2,238 better off each year, making a practical, real difference as a direct result of the changes that we have made, both of which were opposed by those opposite. They opposed people earning more and they opposed people keeping more of what they earn through Labor's tax cuts. It will make a difference to every Australian earning less than $45,000 a year, who would have received not a single cent if those opposite had had their way. That's what it means to help people under pressure, while not adding to inflation. But, of course, those opposite said no to it all. They said no to getting wages moving. They said no to power bill relief. They said no to cheaper child care. And they said no to tax cuts for every taxpayer. And, in saying no to all of this, they said no to lowering inflation. They voted against power bill relief that knocked three-quarters of a per cent off inflation, and now they are pushing a plan for the energy source that will push bills even higher. The highest cost of any new energy source is nuclear, and that's the road that they are going down even though it costs too much and it takes too long. It will also, of course, add to uncertainty and lead to less investment in the rollout that we need right now. Economy 58 14:21 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Treasurer. Labor's homegrown inflation has increased for four months in a row, in stark contrast to peer countries. Markets and leading economists don't see any rate cuts coming in the next 12 months and, worse, now see a rate rise in August as a real risk. Three failed budgets have left the Reserve Bank doing all the heavy lifting, and there is no relief in sight for struggling families. When will this Treasurer cut the spin and take responsibility for his failed budgets? Ms Plibersek 83M When will you take responsibility for leaving inflation so high! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting. She is now warned, for interjecting before a minister has even begun answering a question. 14:22 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin That's what happens when you have to put months of questions into one opportunity. Mr Sukkar 242515 Spin your way out of this one, Jim! The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The member for Deakin, we are three seconds into an answer— Mr Sukkar 242515 Six. The SPEAKER 53517 Six seconds, my apologies! We are six seconds into an answer. You'll leave the chamber under 94(a). You've been constantly interjecting. The member for Deakin then left the chamber. Ms Collins HWM Make it permanent! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs is now warned. Honestly! There is far too much noise. I'm not mucking around today. We are going to hear these answers in silence. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Homegrown inflation is non-tradeable inflation, and it's lower now than when those opposite were in office. That's the first point. The second point is: headline inflation was 6.1 per cent when we came to office. It's still higher than we'd like, but it's much lower than what we inherited from those opposite. If he wants to talk about international comparisons, I know that he—and he's encouraged the Leader of the Opposition to make this mistake too—wants to use Canada as an example. He did it yesterday. He's done it today via the Leader of the Opposition. He really should know that the cash rate is higher in Canada than it is in Australia. Inflation is going up in Canada in most recent data. Unemployment in Canada is 6.1 per cent, and here it's around four per cent. It's hard to know where to begin with the sorts of things that the shadow Treasurer puts to the parliament in the hope that we won't know the actual numbers. I think the most substantial part of his question is about the role of the budget in fighting inflation, and, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said, the two surpluses that we've delivered in the two years that we've been in office are helping in the fight against inflation. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, you would have absolutely no idea what a surplus looks like, because you never delivered one. You printed the mugs. You said there would be a surplus in the first year and every year thereafter. You posed in those awkward photos with the 'back in black' mugs. You did everything except for actually delivering a surplus. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has said our surpluses are helping. Of course the budgets that are handed down by parties of either political persuasion are not the only determinant of prices in our economy, but they can play a helpful role. Turning big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses is playing a helpful role. Designing our cost-of-living relief— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for Groom is now warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 a big chunk of which comes in on Monday, is playing a helpful role: energy prices would be higher without it, childcare prices would be higher without it, and rents would be higher without our efforts. But if those opposite want to say that spending in the budget is the primary determinant of inflation, then no wonder they left us with inflation much higher than it is now. They delivered a budget with no savings in it—their last budget. They spent $40 billion—almost double what we spent. They had two deficits, worth $135 billion, that we've turned into surpluses. They spent most of the upward revision to revenue, and they found no savings in their last budget. So, if it's— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Treasurer will pause. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right, I want to hear from the member for Hume on his point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 On relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was about the Treasurer's failed budgets and why market interest rates have— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, Mr Speaker: this question allowed full range on everything about budgets and everything about the economy. In terms of an attempt at a tightly framed question, I don't think I've seen anything worse with that aim than this one. It went across the field and the portfolio. The SPEAKER 53517 It was a broad question with a number of things within it. I know the question at the end was a political question, but the Treasurer has to make sure his answer is directly relevant to what he was asked by the member for Hume. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Thanks, Mr Speaker. This is why the Leader of the Opposition was moved to insist the other day that the shadow Treasurer is not incompetent, which is what his colleagues think of him. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The reason inflation was higher under them than it is under us is that we've been more responsible with the budget than they ever were. The best evidence of that is the two surpluses that we— (Time expired) Renewable Energy 59 14:27 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How has the Albanese Labor government made progress on renewable energy project applications after a decade of neglect? What approaches has the government rejected? 14:27 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Macnamara for his question. He's a wonderful local member and a huge supporter of renewable energy. The transition to renewables is real and it's happening, but it's no thanks to those opposite. It's no thanks to the Liberals, it's no thanks to the Nationals, and, frankly, it's no thanks to the Greens political party either. Those opposite had 22 energy policies when they were in government, and they didn't land a single one. They were warned that 24 coal-fired power stations were closing, and they did nothing to replace the energy generation capacity that was leaving the grid. Frankly, the delays and the dysfunction scared renewables investment offshore. But I understand why the Greens political party are a bit sensitive about this as well. They may well regret teaming up with the Liberals to knock off the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Because of that, we saw an extra 80 million tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution enter the atmosphere. They may well regret putting the renewables transition years off track because of the fact that they teamed up with the Liberals. Frankly, it's up to us now to work overtime to get the renewable energy transition back on track, and, thankfully, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has been doing that. He's told us that we're up to 25 per cent renewable energy in our grid: cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy. As environment minister, I'm ticking off a new renewable energy project about every fortnight. That contrasts, seven to one, compared with coal and gas projects: seven renewable energy projects to every one coal or gas project that's being approved. What is the risk to the renewable energy boom under Labor? The risk is sitting here and the risk is sitting right up there. We know that the nuclear fantasy proposed by those opposite is too slow and it's too expensive. We know it's too expensive. The estimate for the cost of it is $600 billion. But of course it's not the Liberals or the Nationals telling us the cost of their own policies. No; we're relying on experts for that. Those opposite say they know the cost, but they're not prepared to share it with the Australian public. Mr Littleproud 265585 The koalas are gone! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I hear the Leader of the Nationals interjecting about koalas. It was the deputy leader of the Liberal Party who saw koalas added to the threatened species list, and it's a Greens senator that's bulldozing koala— (Time expired) Economy 60 14:31 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson My question is to the Prime Minister. A support service for people who are homeless in my electorate of Dawson is at breaking point. Operator of Orange Sky Laundry in my electorate, Lisa Jamison, has said: 'You go to the grocery store and the price difference from six months ago is astronomical. We've seen rental increases from $260 per week to $350.' Prime Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence? 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Dawson for his question that goes to cost-of-living measures and the impact it has on people in his community. What we know is that every single person working in that community and paying tax will get a bigger tax cut on Monday as a result of the measures that we've put in place. The member for Dawson also knows that those opposite, on his team, said that it would crush confidence, it would obliterate opportunity, it would undermine the strength of the economy and it was Marxist economics to give everyone a tax cut. We are getting wages moving again, but you voted against every single measure we put in place to ensure wages got moving. The coalition claimed that it would return Australia to the Dark Ages, it would close down the economy and it would leave supermarket shelves bare. On cheaper medicines, you voted six times in the Senate to stop it, to stop cheaper medicines. Not surprising, given, as health minister, the opposition leader wanted to jack up the price of essential medicines by $5 a script. When we strengthened Medicare by tripling bulk-billing incentives, the shadow health minister dismissed the initiative and opposed it. There was opposition to cheaper child care as well. And now our energy price relief plan— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for Fisher is now warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 has been described by the former leader of his party, the National Party—the member who rose not once, but twice to the position—the sequel no-one wanted to see—the member for New England, as 'Venezuelan communism'. That's how he described cheaper energy bills. Now, when it comes to housing, there was a vote over there in the Senate this morning. Once again, we've seen the 'no-alition' of the coalition and the Greens get together once again. The SPEAKER 53517 I know where the Manager of Opposition Business is going with this. I'm glad the Prime Minister clarified what his definition of that was. It's being used in a different way, so we'll just get the Prime Minister to return back to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about housing, and, over there in the Senate today, they have voted to split off the build-to-rent proposals from our tax legislation that would encourage more investment in development. The reason why the Greens say they oppose it is that developers will build the new housing, and they voted for that proposition. They voted for it. Who do you think builds houses? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister's time has concluded. Mr ALBANESE R36 I seek to take the unusual step of tabling the Australian Greens release praising their alliance with the Liberal Party and the National Party, who are, once again, opposing housing. Energy 61 14:35 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What do scientific experts, including at the CSIRO, tell us about the best way to deliver reliable, affordable clean energy? Which approaches are found to be the most expensive? 14:36 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Bennelong for the question. He represents an area with a terrific store of scientific and research talent. On this side of the House, we respect science. Science has long alerted us to the impact of climate change and also what we can do about it, and the evidence is clear. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey will cease interjecting. Mr HUSIC 91219 Renewables will lower emissions the fastest and at the lowest cost. We know that because the national science agency, the CSIRO, does the work to help establish the facts and to outline the evidence. The government respects its work. The best way to demonstrate that respect is to listen to what they say. We can cut emissions and grow jobs. That's what our Future Made in Australia plan is all about—mobilising Australian manufacturers to make the things that can reduce emissions and create secure jobs. We are getting on with that job. On our watch, there's been about a 25 per cent increase in renewables into the grid and over 50 renewable projects approved—enough to power three million homes—creating jobs for welders, engineers, electricians, steelworkers and riggers. They're not just workers in our cities but workers in regional areas, where blue-collar workers can see a pipeline of work that can sustain them in their communities. Renewable energy projects that deliver cheaper energy and more jobs now—not decades down the track—are how you deliver cost-of-living relief. It's not by pushing up power prices with the most expensive form of power going, nuclear. The CSIRO's GenCost report couldn't be clearer about the cost of the coalition's one-page nuclear power plan. Nuclear power is at least eight times more expensive to deliver than solar and wind, and the earliest that nuclear power could be ready is 2040. We can get this job done today without spending the extraordinary amounts of taxpayer dollars on the coalition's one-page nuclear plan. It's policy on a post-it note. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fadden and the member for Fairfax will cease interjecting. Mr HUSIC 91219 That's what the Liberals and Nationals are pushing. On that side, they use voodoo economics ignoring the evidence—but not just that; they're actively undermining it. We had Senator Canavan accuse the CSIRO, in his words, 'of living in a fantasy land of spreadsheets'. I don't know what Excel's ever done to him, but he's got big beef with it. The coalition delivers policy on a post-it note and then chips scientists who use spreadsheets with evidence and facts as living in a fantasy land. We also had the member for Mitchell say: 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 … (Time expired) Economy 61 14:39 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Prime Minister. In three failed budgets, Labor has made the fight against inflation worse, with bad decisions and the wrong priorities. Betashares' chief economist, David Bassanese, described the latest inflation data as a 'shocker', saying it places huge pressure on the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates in August. Prime Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence? 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question, which is similar to previous questions in today's question time. What we are doing on the economy and in budgets, what I'm asked about, is turning Liberal Party deficits into Labor surpluses. That's what we've done—not once, but twice. And we're doing that whilst we're providing support for people who most need it. Now, those opposite have an opportunity to come in here and to move a private members' bill to restore their tax cuts that they wanted, where they would get—and I'd get as well—$9,000, rather than $4½ thousand— Mr Taylor 231027 Australians have never had it better! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 But they'd have to explain to the good people of Mallee and that region—many of whom certainly earn under the top marginal tax rate—that, 'Sorry, but if you're under $45,000, you miss out, because people at the top end need that $9,000, rather than people on under $45,000.' The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for Petrie and the member for Mallee will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 If that's the view that they have, then they should take up the opportunity that they have, perhaps again in alliance with their friends in the Greens in the Senate, to put forward such legislation. But they don't do that. We know that they consistently oppose any increase in wage rises, including for people on the minimum wage, which many people in regional communities, represented by the National Party, are on. We, on this side of the chamber, want people to earn more, and we want people to keep more of what they earn. But we also want to make sure, as I've said consistently, that— Mr Littleproud 265585 We gave them the first two tax cuts. Don't forget that. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Leader of the Nationals. Mr ALBANESE R36 we don't want people to be left behind, which is why we are looking after the people according to need. But that's why, as well, we're looking after families, with cheaper child care. That's why our Energy Price Relief Plan of $300 that comes in on Monday— Ms Ley 00AMN Have you ever been to Mallee? Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes, I have been to the member's electorate, actually. I get out and about—I've been to yours too. Have you dropped in? That's the question—have you dropped in? We're busy trying to make a difference with practical plans. Every single one of the plans providing cost-of-living assistance have been opposed by those opposite. National Disability Insurance Scheme 62 14:43 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What reforms are the Albanese Labor government implementing to ensure the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme? What will be the cost to the taxpayer and the NDIS participants of delays to these reforms? 14:43 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Thank you for your question. Every member of the House knows that the NDIS is changing hundreds of thousands of lives for the better, but we also know the scheme is growing too fast. In the process of reforms, we've a discovered a serious loophole which we seek to address in parliament right now. Specifically: where an annual budget is spent in three to six months, there's nothing to stop the automatic top-up after the amount has been expended before the expiry of the plan. Sometimes there's good reason why the plan gets spent more quickly, but I'm advised by the agency that two-thirds of the requests for automatic top-ups are not legitimate, so there's a bill in the Senate to close this loophole. We're proposing a total capped flexible budget for all participants. This will provide accountability for taxpayers and better choice and control for participants. This bill has been the subject of a 12-week Senate inquiry. There were 205 written submissions, 50 witnesses and three days of public hearings. The coalition members on the Senate committee did not dissent from the findings. However, the coalition, in alliance with the Greens, is now seeking to delay this bill another eight weeks to have a second Senate inquiry. Now, sometimes in parliament time is not of the essence. But I seek to table at the end of my answer a note summarising what the actuary of the NDIA has said. 'A two-month delay in the passage of this bill means a … $1.06 billion increase to expenditure over the forward estimates.' As a consequence, the Liberals and the Greens want to delay the legislation, which will cost a billion dollars, and the delay is pointless. The Greens are not a party of government and the Liberals opposite know we could do anything in this bill and they will never vote for it. But what makes this delay even more pointless and wasteful in a cost-of-living crisis is deep down the Libs and Nats know they're probably going to vote for the bill in August. So why are we having a $1 billion ego-vanity show? That billion dollars that you're willing to waste could pay for the packages of 60,000 children on the scheme in a year. The average taxpayer in Australia pays $20,000 net tax. The coalition and their Greens allies are willing to say to 54,000 taxpayers that the tax they pay in a year doesn't matter. It's the population of Gladstone or Ballina or Port Macquarie. This is such a dumb thing to do. I ask more in hope than experience: don't hide behind this notion that you want to consult; just get on and save the money for the scheme. (Time expired) Housing 63 14:46 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Treasurer. Skyrocketing rents, increasing at close to twice the rate of inflation, and corporate price gouging are driving inflation and threatening homeowners and renters with another interest rate rise. Treasurer, instead of allowing the Reserve Bank to hit people with another interest rate hike, why don't you show leadership and work with national cabinet to impose a rent freeze and cap, and make price gouging illegal? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Moreton is warned. 14:47 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The member for Griffith has got a lot of nerve asking this question today, having just teamed up in the Senate with the coalition—with the conservatives—to knock off tens of thousands of rental properties to help fix the problem that we have with housing supply in this country. Now, if the Greens political party really cared about building more homes then they would have voted for the tax break that would have built tens of thousands of homes for people to rent. This is the hypocrisy at the very, very core of the Greens' political party when they keep teaming up with the conservatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives to prevent this country building more houses that our people desperately need. The consequence of your vote in the Senate today could be 10060,000 fewer homes for homeless people and young people to rent. If you really gave a stuff about homelessness in this country, you would vote for the policies that would build more housing supply in this country and you wouldn't conduct this ridiculous, underhanded, hypocritical campaign which sees you vote more frequently with them than with us to build the homes that you pretend you want to see in our local communities. If the member for Griffith and his Greens colleagues really cared about homelessness, if they really cared about rental pressures, they would vote with the Labor government to build more properties in this country for people to rent, and every time they don't do that, they lay bare what's really going on here. They are much, much more interested in fighting Labor in the inner cities than they are in fighting for more homes for young people and the homeless. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer and the member for Griffith will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Spence is warned. Health Care 63 14:50 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to tackle the public health menace of vaping? Why is urgent action required? What approaches have been rejected? 14:50 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Holt for her question and for her support of these reforms. Vaping is a scourge. It is a public health menace, particularly for children and for young people. A product that was presented as a therapeutic good that would help hardened smokers finally kick the habit has actually been deployed by big tobacco as a tool to recruit a new generation to nicotine addiction. You just have to look at the products—brightly coloured with cartoon characters on them and with ridiculous flavours like 'bubblegum ice'. They are often designed as highlighter pens or USB sticks so that they can be hidden in pencil cases, away from the eyes of teachers and parents. And you just have to look at where they're being sold: nine out of 10 vape stores are located within walking distance of schools. That is deliberate, because that is exactly their target market. The tragedy is that big tobacco is winning this war. One in six high school students are vaping. One in four very young adults are vaping, and it is causing them real harm. Parents are having to manage kids with serious nicotine addictions. Teachers are being rostered not just to stand outside of toilets but inside school toilets during lunch breaks and recess to police vaping in their schools. They are, all of them, asking us in this building, 'How on earth did this happen?' To his credit, Greg Hunt tried to stop the flood of imported vapes into this country, but he was rolled by his party room within a matter of days. They kept on flooding in until 1 January, when our government finally banned the import of disposal vapes. In those six months we have seized more than 2.8 million vapes, taking them out of the hands of our kids finally. Today, parliament passed the next phase of our reforms: to ban the sale and the supply of vapes outside therapeutic settings. Remember, this was supposed to be a therapeutic good. From Monday, you'll only be able to buy a vape from a therapeutic place for therapeutic reasons— Mr Conaghan 279991 Abolition always works! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Cowper will cease interjecting. Mr BUTLER HWK from a pharmacy and after a conversation with a qualified health professional; not in the vape stores, not in convenient stores and not in other retail settings. This is a real change. The College of General Practitioners said: This is about saving children's lungs and younger generations from getting hooked on nicotine. Every now and then, this place has a real opportunity to do something meaningful and lasting for the health of young Australians; today was one of those days, and we did it. Energy 64 14:53 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. The annual St Vincent de Paul Society tariff tracker has exposed the impact of eye-watering energy prices, with households in some regional areas now paying a record $4,170 a year for combined gas and electricity bills, despite the Prime Minister promising on 97 occasions that he would reduce power bills by $275. Prime Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence? 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about energy policy and I'm happy to speak about it because, on Monday every household will get $300 off their energy bills and every small business will get $325 off their energy bills. That's something that those oppose; they're against it. So they come to the dispatch box— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals has had a really good go this question time, so he's warned and will not say another word for the remainder of question time. Mr ALBANESE R36 They come to this dispatch box and ask questions about energy prices at the same time as they vote against energy relief in people's bills that will make a practical difference. And that's at the same time as they now propose the highest-cost new form of energy possible in nuclear. And the true cost of nuclear power in Australia is the grave risk and the great cost of going backwards—not just hundreds of billions of dollars in the cost of constructing the reactors more than a decade away and not just the price that households and businesses would pay for energy that is eight times more than renewables. But it's the danger in that another decade of denial prevents the action on climate but also the investment in energy that we need right now. I have no comprehension, because the opposition haven't released any detail at all of how they could possibly think that the most expensive form of new energy will somehow do anything other than to drive energy costs up. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Lindsay, a point of order? Mrs McIntosh 281513 Obviously, it's on relevance. We didn't ask about the opposition's policies. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about families paying more. It was a broad-ranging political question, but the Prime Minister will return back to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm speaking very directly about energy and costs and what the risks are of those opposite, because they want to have nuclear power to be deployed as just the latest part of culture wars. But what they want to do is to drive investment away. What we are doing is adding to supply. Indeed, our plan will add 32 gigs to the system by 2030. Rooftop solar today is already generating twice as much energy as their reactors would by 2050. And we've seen a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national grid. One of the reasons people are doing that in the electorate of Lindsay is to lower their energy bills. Just as it makes sense for households, it makes sense for our national economy as well. Cost of Living 64 14:58 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What cost-of-living relief is the Albanese Labor government delivering to Australian households, including low-income households? 14:58 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for McEwen for his question—and what a fantastic local member he is. Of course, like the member for McEwen, Labor understand that people are under pressure, and that is why our No. 1 priority is delivering responsible cost-of-living relief. In just a few days' time, significant help rolls out. From 1 July, all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut. Of course, that includes many low-income earners who those opposite sought to deny those tax cuts to in their plan. From 1 July, 2.6 million low-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay increase backed by this government, because Labor wants people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. On 1 July, 1.3 million low- and middle-income Australian families receive a boost to their family tax benefit. This boost was regularly denied by those opposite when they were in government. And next week also marks the start of our historic expansion to paid parental leave, with an extra two weeks added to the government scheme from 1 July this year. These families are not double dippers like the coalition would have you believe. They deserve extra support, and we are delivering it. Our government is also providing more support to pensioners. From 1 July, we're extending the freeze on the social security deeming rate and increasing the income and assets limit, meaning more than a million pensioners will be able to keep more of their payment. We're, of course, also freezing the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian, and we are delivering $300 in energy bill relief for every household next week. Of course, this is not the end of this relief. The government is delivering— Mr Dutton 00AKI Page 3. Ms RISHWORTH HWA What did you say about misogyny the other day? Of course, this is not the end of the relief our government is giving. Our government is delivering— Ms RISHWORTH HWA If you will pass the bill, our— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will direct her remarks through the chair. Ms RISHWORTH HWA We are delivering an extra boost to Commonwealth rent assistance on 20 September, if you actually will pass the bill. This is how you deliver cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up power prices with a nuclear dream. It has been credibly established that nuclear energy is the highest and most expensive form of power. We on this side of the House will deliver real cost-of-living relief while they thrust nuclear power onto everyone. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI The point I was making was that the minister should table the document from which she read verbatim. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Okay, we're just going to keep—Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows if he wishes the minister to table the document he can do so. He did not take the form of the House to do that. He simply asked the minister to stop reading or whatever she was— Mr Taylor 231027 You read your own 30-second question! The SPEAKER 53517 There's no point of order and I just— Government members: Sit down! The SPEAKER 53517 There's a correct way to do that. When you rose on your feet, you didn't ask me to do that. You didn't ask, 'Could the minister table the paper?' Are you requesting the minister to table the document? Mr Dutton 00AKI Yes, I am. The SPEAKER 53517 Was the minister reading from confidential documents? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 As I remind all members during questions— Ms Rishworth HWA What were you saying about interjections? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Social Services and the Assistant Treasurer will cease interjecting. I remind all members that reading questions and reading answers is not against the standing orders. Whistleblowers 65 15:03 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is for the Attorney-General, and I'll be reading it! Integrity in our political system is hugely important to the people of Mackellar, and whistleblowers are a vital pillar of that integrity. Yet right now we have one whistleblower serving a lengthy jail term and one facing trial. Civil society is united in its call for a federal whistleblower protection authority, something the Attorney-General promised before the 2019 election. Will you recommit to establishing a whistleblower protection authority in this term of government? 15:03 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I do thank the member for Mackellar for her question. I can assure the member for Mackellar that integrity is very important to every member of our government, and I would hope that integrity is important to every member of the Australian community. Our government is committed to delivering strong, effective and accessible protections for whistleblowers. Just to remind the House of where we've got to in this, in June last year, the parliament passed priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act which ensured there were immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblower scheme in place in time for the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That set of reforms implemented 21 of the 33 recommendations of the review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 that was conducted by Mr Philip Moss, an eminent former Australian public servant, in 2016. To give some context to that, these were the first significant public-sector whistleblower reforms since the Public Interest Disclosure Act was first enacted by the Gillard government, a Labor government, in 2013. When we enacted the Public Interest Disclosure Act in 2013, we took the precaution of writing into that act a statutory review. That statutory review took place because the former government didn't have a choice, and the statutory review was carried out by Mr Moss. Regrettably, the former government didn't see fit to implement a single one of those recommendations; we have implemented 21 of the recommendations. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Mackellar on a point of order. Dr Scamps 299623 A point of order on relevance: my question was directly about the federal whistleblower protection authority. The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General needs to remind himself of the standing orders regarding the direct relevance provisions to make sure his answer is compliant with that. Mr DREYFUS HWG The government is now progressing a second, broader stage of reforms, which has included the release of a consultation paper. There has been public consultation on additional supports for public-sector whistleblowers, which may include a whistleblower protection authority. There have been submissions received as part of that consultation process, and they are being used to inform the government's next steps for reform. Housing 66 15:06 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering more affordable housing, and what are the risks? 15:06 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank our terrific member for Chisholm for that question. She knows, of course, that Australia doesn't have enough homes and we haven't had enough homes for a long time. Indeed, the Albanese Labor government understands that too many Australians are facing serious housing challenges, which is why we have our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan. Part of that plan, as I've said here many times, is the Housing Australia Future Fund. We all remember the Housing Australia Future Fund and what happened in this parliament. It got delayed by the Liberals and the Greens teaming up together. It has done its first tender round, as I said earlier in the week, and those tenders will be announced later on in this year. They have been delayed by at least six months because of the unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Greens in the Senate again. Another part of our Homes for Australia plan is Help to Buy. The Help to Buy bill will be in the Senate again next week. And, again, we've got the unholy alliance of the Liberals, who are supposed to be the party of homeownership but clearly aren't, and the Greens, over here, who are supposed to support shared-equity schemes. Indeed, shared-equity schemes were part of the Greens' pre-election policy. This shared-equity scheme—the Liberals and the Greens are teaming up again to block it in the Senate. Another important part of our Homes for Australia policy is our build-to-rent changes. These are changes that the Property Council of Australia has said will build around 160,000 rentals, 10 per cent of them being affordable rentals for people that need homes. That's part of our Homes for Australia plan. But what have we seen today? Again, we've seen the unholy alliance of the Liberal Party and the Greens political party teaming up again, in the Senate, to block affordable homes. They're against more social and affordable homes, they're against more affordable rental homes, and they're against shared-equity schemes to get people into homeownership—both the Liberals and the Greens. Today they voted for higher rents and more homelessness. That's what the Liberal Party and the Greens have done today in the Senate: voted for higher rents and more homelessness. I hope they're proud of themselves for continually teaming up with the Liberal Party in the Senate to block homes—homes of every sort. We're not just talking about private homes here; we're talking about social and affordable homes being delayed. We're talking about homeownership being delayed for people that otherwise wouldn't be able to own a home, and we're talking about affordable rentals. They should be ashamed of themselves in the Greens political party. They say they care about housing and homelessness, yet they keep teaming up with the obstructionist Liberals in the Senate, playing games with people's lives. This is about homes for people that need them. (Time expired) Energy 67 15:09 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Prime Minister. Mount Gambier based food manufacturers, Sugar and Spice, in my electorate of Barker is at breaking point. Since 2020— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right, I'm not sure what is being so exercised here, but— A government member: He's reading the question! The SPEAKER 53517 As I said, people can read things in the chamber. We're going to reset the clock so the member can read his question. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No—which he is entitled to do. We're not going to have any interjections about it. The member for Barker has the call. Mr PASIN 240756 My question is to the Prime Minister. Mount Gambier food based manufacturer, Sugar and Spice, in my seat of Barker, is at breaking point. Since 2020 they have seen energy costs rise by 36 per cent. That's despite seeing usage decline. Owners Victor and Tanya have told me, 'The significant rise in energy costs since Labor have come to office is very disappointing.' Prime Minister, when will Australian families pay the price for Labor's economic incompetence? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No, we're just going to handle this. The member for Barker didn't get to his question in time. That means, if a minister now goes over time, I don't want anyone interjecting, 'It's time.' I'm trying to be flexible with questions to make sure questions are asked, so enough of the yelling at me, 'Time', okay? It's a two-way street. The Prime Minister has the call. 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Barker for his question and for being here after three o'clock during question time; well done, son! And it's Thursday—so a special stamp for the member for Barker! It is an electorate I've also been to—and I invited the member for Barker when I went to his electorate, and he attended as well. We talked to many people in that electorate— Mr Pasin 240756 Where'd we go? Do you remember? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker has asked his question. The Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 who were doing it tough there in the Riverland during what was just one of the many natural disasters I've had to attend as Prime Minister in the just over two years I have had the great honour of being Prime Minister. That is not just why we are seeking the cheapest form of new energy because of the economics that will drive down energy costs; we're also doing it because of the cost of inaction to our natural environment. There is an enormous cost of inaction—and that was exacerbated, of course, by the 10 years they were in office, where they had 22 energy plans but didn't nail a single one. We have one energy plan, and we are implementing it— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Grey will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 with a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. What that is doing is driving the opportunities that are there for business to invest, because greater supply of renewable energy at the lowest cost form of new energy will lead to, over a period of time, the lowering of our costs. The environment minister, earlier on today, spoke about the 50 renewable energy projects that have been ticked off—enough to power more than three million homes. We have seen a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national grid, we have seen over 330,000 rooftop solar installations in the last year alone and we are already halfway to meeting our 2030 emissions target. This is the progress that we have made over the last two years. We know that there has been an impact on global energy as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That occurred right around the world. But what we're dealing with is a plan that deals with the immediate cost-of-living pressures through our Energy Price Relief Plan, whilst we're putting in place an energy system that will lead to the cheapest form of energy being provided to households and to small businesses. Veterans: Homelessness 68 15:15 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. How will the Albanese Labor government's Home for Australia Plan respond to the housing challenges confronting Australia's veterans, and why is action urgently needed? 15:15 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I want to thank the member for Adelaide for this important question and acknowledge his support for the over 3,800 veterans in his community. Veterans are more than three times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population. On census night in 2021, we saw that over 1,500 Australian veterans were homeless. Every year, about 6,000 veterans are at risk of experiencing homelessness. Last week, the member for Boothby and I went and visited the Andrew Russell Veteran Living centre in her electorate, where we got to meet Duncan, an Australian veteran, who had been provided with housing and, critically, with the wrap around support services that he required to get back on his feet. Whilst I was there, I also announced that the Albanese Labor government is addressing the veteran homelessness problem with the launch of the Veterans' Acute Housing Program. This is a program funded through the Housing Australia Future Fund—the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade—and forms part of the Albanese government's $32 billion Homes for Australia Plan— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Cowan is now warned. Mr KEOGH 249147 led by the Minister for Housing, Homelessness and Small Business. This is a new $30 million program that is delivering on our commitment at the election to support veterans and their families who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. Applications for grant funding are now open to veteran-aware community housing providers and ex-service organisations to apply for one or both of the two schemes. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England is warned. If he interjects one more time, he'll leave the chamber. Mr KEOGH 249147 There's $24 million available to build or expand crisis and transitional housing, as well as $6 million available for the specialist wraparound services to support our veterans. There's no doubt that this issue of veteran homelessness is urgent, which is why it was so disappointing that the opposition, along with the Greens political party, delayed the Housing Australia Future Fund by six months. By voting against it in this place, they delayed these funds from being made available earlier, just as they are now opposing the build-to-rent scheme in the Senate. It is absolutely galling, shocking and appalling that we have the opposition and the Greens coming together to oppose further support for housing, after they already opposed support for housing for our veterans. It seems that those opposite are willing to put undisclosed billions of dollars into nuclear reactors, but they are standing in the way of putting together the funding to support our veterans who are experiencing homelessness. We said that we would support veteran housing, and that's exactly what we are doing. That's how you deal with cost-of-living relief, not through pushing up power bills through nuclear reactors. (Time expired) Energy 68 15:18 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the last year, South Australia relied on electricity imports from Victoria for every single week of the year, including seven weeks where imported energy exceeded 50 gigawatt hours. During these periods, South Australia also fired up its own gas and diesel generation to keep the lights on. When Yallourn closes in 2028, where will South Australia import energy from during periods of prolonged wind droughts? 15:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Sturt. I also visited the member for Sturt's electorate very recently. I was there with someone called Claire Clutterham—remember the name, she's terrific. Claire is out there talking with the good people of Sturt about renewable energy and about our government's plan. Funnily enough, when I was in Sturt no-one there was saying, 'I can't wait for those nuke reactors to make a difference!' But in the question that was asked, he exposes the fraudulent nature of their plans. He just spoke about the closure of a coal-fired power station and what will happen in the meantime? Well, I guess they'll just stand still till 2045, until the nuclear reactors come down if you have your plan. How absurd to ask a question speaking about the closure of coal. Twenty-four coal-fired power stations announced their closure when you were in government. And you did nothing about it. You waited till you went to the opposition benches and then you came out with this absurd nuclear plan sometime into the future with no idea what fills the gap in the meantime. That's the point. You can't continue to just do nothing because if you just do nothing, what you will do is leave a gap which will lead to a significant escalation of prices which will also lead to a departure of investment. Because it's Thursday afternoon, I'll give my friend, the minister, the chance for the last minute. 15:21 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon That question from the member for Sturt was the most successful intervention in the renewable energy debate since Josh Frydenberg and the Premier of South Australia had a press conference together, where Josh Frydenberg was blaming renewable energy in South Australia for blackouts, which renewable energy had nothing to do with. I tell you what the honourable member for Sturt might have wanted to check. He asked about the closure of the Yallourn power station, which was announced when they were in office. And what did they do? They brought down the Underwriting New Generation Investment fund, which should have been called 'the unfortunately no generation involved fund', because it delivered not one watt of energy. What we saw was four gigawatts leave the grid and one gigawatt come on. That was the result of 10 years of policy indolence. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 A reminder that people are still on warnings. They can still leave the chamber if they interject. Wages 69 15:22 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government helping deliver pay rises for Australian workers after a decade of low wages? 15:23 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Moreton. He's a fine member from Queensland who wants to make sure that workers earn more and keep more of what they earn. I was talking to a Queensland worker this morning who's a bit south of your area, at Tallebudgera. Deborah is an aged-care worker and Deborah was explaining to me that in the last round of pay rises, as a result of the aged care wage case—which those opposite refused to contribute to when the Albanese Labor government said that aged care workers deserved a decent pay rise—her pay went up $500 a fortnight. You look at the pressure that people are under with cost of living, and for Deborah that pay rise came through at the exact time that her mortgage went from fixed interest to variable. For her, it's been life-changing and has ensured that she could deal with cost of living. A wage increase that those opposite opposed, never would have delivered and didn't want us to deliver. That's how you help people with the cost of living. You don't do it by building expensive nuclear reactors. Those pay rises mean different things for different people. Deborah was going through some of the different workers. She was telling me for herself, every second week she's got the grandchildren and described herself as 'a glutton for punishment'. She said at the workplace that she's at, overwhelmingly it's women in the workplace there. She said more than half of the women at that particular aged-care centre are on their own caring for their kids. She was saying, across that workforce, how much each story was different, but, for each person, the fact that wages are now moving is life changing for those workers. There are millions of stories like Deborah's. There are 2.6 million people who are on the award system who are about to get pay increases. Everybody—a wage earner in the PAYE tax system is about to get a tax cut. People on enterprise agreements are getting pay rises. People are seeing their wages moving because of the Albanese Labor government. People are getting more job security because of the Albanese Labor government. The gender pay gap is closing because of laws that were changed under the Albanese Labor government. People are earning more and keeping more of what they earn because of the Albanese Labor government. And every one of these changes has been opposed by those opposite—by an opposition that has one simple premise, which is that it wants people to have to work longer for less. You can't talk about the cost of living without wanting people to get paid more, and those opposite want people to get paid less. Energy 69 15:25 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister never delivered the promised $275 cut to power bills, why should we believe that US President Biden, French President Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and UK Labor leader Starmer have it wrong on energy, but the Prime Minister's $1.3 trillion renewables-only policy is the perfect solution to cheaper energy for Australian families and businesses? 15:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, that's an around-the-world question, and I'm happy to go around the world. Let's speak about— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Hume is now on a warning. He is on the MPI, so that's it—no more interjections. Mr ALBANESE R36 The Leader of the Opposition has said, when it comes to large-scale reactors, the coalition wants to rely on—to quote him—the Westinghouse AP1000. Well, let's have a look at that. In 2008 the Georgia Power company announced plans to expand the Vogtle plant, signing a contract with Westinghouse Electric to build two AP1000 nuclear reactors—the first new nuclear reactor to be built in the US since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Construction began in 2009. The initial cost estimate was $22 billion, and the project was expected to be up and running in 2017. Now, after 14 years of construction, the final bill came in at $54 billion—a $32 billion cost blowout and delivered seven years late. It's not the only one, because, in 2008 also, South Carolina Electric & Gas and the South Carolina Public Service Authority announced plans to expand the Virgil C Summer nuclear power station, signing a contract to build two, again, AP1000 nuclear reactors. A few false starts—construction finally began in 2013. The project was estimated to cost $15 billion and to be completed in 2016. By 2017 the cost had ballooned to $38.2 billion. In the waste of that, the project was cancelled, but only after $14 billion had been spent—$14 billion had been spent but not a gig created. It's a bit like the member for Hume's schemes when they were in government—a bit like their schemes. And, in the wake of these two debacles, Westinghouse Electric filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2017. It's no wonder that the former New South Wales treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean, now the chair of the Climate Change Authority, when asked why he didn't go down the nuclear road, said, 'Advice to me was that, in order to bring nuclear into the system, it would take far too long and would be far too expensive for New South Wales. I didn't want to bankrupt the state.' That's what Matt Kean had to say. So, if you want to talk about examples, we're happy to engage in this debate. In the meantime we'll get on with providing the support for the energy that Australia needs, which is the transition that is underway. Cost of Living 70 15:29 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to provide cost-of-living relief to students and workers? What approaches has the government rejected? 15:30 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the terrific member for Tangney for his question. Four of the most important jobs in this country—teachers, nurses, midwives and social workers, people who work in our domestic violence refuges—will all get a tax cut next week. A social worker on 75 grand will get a tax cut of more than $1,500, a teacher on 80 grand will get a tax cut of $1,679, a nurse on 90 grand will get a tax cut of $1,929 and a midwife on $95,000 will get a tax cut of more than $2,000. That's how you deliver real cost-of-living relief—not by jacking up power prices with expensive nuclear reactors. And if you're a student at university and you're studying teaching, or nursing, or midwifery or social work, then there's something else coming to help you with the cost of living, and that is paid prac—financial support while you do your practical training. This will be the first time that the Commonwealth government has ever provided this financial support for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students. A lot of students tell me that when they do their prac they've got to give up their part-time job and that they've either got to move away from home or do fewer hours. Sometimes that can mean they delay doing their degree or don't finish it at all. An honourable member interjecting— Mr CLARE HWL I got asked to tell a story—let me indulge you! A UTS midwifery student told me this: 'I'm a first-year mature-age midwifery student. This payment is going to be absolutely life-changing for me. As a mother of two small children, I'm often balancing between work, placement and looking after my babies. There are literally some days where I'm doing 16-hour days between my study, my work and looking after my children. I cannot wait for this payment to be available for myself and other future mature-age students who might also want to enrol in this course but previously couldn't afford to do it.' That's real cost-of-living relief. When parliament returns after the winter break I will bring forward legislation to wipe out $3 billion of student debt for more than three million Australians, retrospectively. Both of these things—paid prac and wiping out student debt—help with the cost of degrees and with the cost of living, and encourage more people to become a teacher, a nurse, a midwife or a social worker. And when they get to work, Albo's tax cuts will help them to keep more of what they earn. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has the call— Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 Mr Speaker— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Albanese R36 Don't read it! Don't read it! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 71 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 49 of 2023-24 71 15:33 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 49 of 2023-24 entitled Compliance with corporate credit card requirements in the Australian Research Council: Australian Research Council. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Presentation 71 15:33 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 71 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 71 15:34 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This government's mismanagement causing inflation to run out of control. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:34 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Before the last election, Labor promised Australians a great deal. They promised cheaper mortgages. They promised lower electricity prices. They indeed promised a $275 reduction in electricity prices. But most of all they promised Australian families that they would be better off. What they certainly didn't promise is that Australians would be poorer under Labor. But, over the last two years, despite the great hope Australians had—and Australians are fair-minded people. They'll always give a new government a go. Sometimes, I wonder about the wisdom of letting this lot have a go, but they had a go, and we've got to respect the last election. But they're trusting, and they've given this lot two years to do what they said they were going to do. But the truth of the matter is that in recent months we've seen a complete and abject failure to deliver on those promises. What we saw yesterday in the inflation data that came out is an absolute shocker. Most importantly, as a result of what we saw yesterday, Australians are losing hope. Labor promised that the hard times that Australians were experiencing under them—the 12 interest rate increases they'd seen, the sharp increases in prices, the 20 per cent increases in personal income taxes being paid—were all temporary, that there was light at the end of the tunnel, that there was a way through this. They spun it, day in and day out. That's all the Treasurer does. He's not a doctor of economics, of course; he's a doctor of spin. But he has been running out of spin in recent weeks because what we have seen are Australians losing hope. The light is not there at the end of the tunnel. Indeed, we have seen homegrown inflation continue to surge. The promise was that it would keep coming down. But for four months in a row we've seen core inflation rising, not going down. It was promised that it would go down. He said, 'There would be a bit of zig and zag.' Well, there's no zig and zag; it's only going one way, and that is up. That is up. And he is in complete denial about it because he thinks he can actually change the economy with spin. You can't. You've got to do it with substance. You've got to do it with real policies. The inflation problem, as the Reserve Bank governor has told us, is homegrown. It has come from Labor's policies—the wrong priorities, their wrong policies. We see this in the numbers that came out yesterday. Core inflation has gone up to 4.4 per cent—up. I never thought I would have to say this. The hope was that, at the very least, it was going to stay where it was, but it has gone up. Headline: 'Inflation—up to four per cent.' But here's the real tell-tale in this. The real tell of what's going on is that non-tradable inflation—that's the domestic stuff; that's the homegrown bit—is 5.32 per cent, and it's up. It's the high bit. For tradable inflation, the important bit, they love to blame the Ukraine. The Ukrainians are going through a tough time right now, and they don't need the blame from this Treasurer for our inflation. But the good news for them is that it's not their fault, because tradable inflation—imported inflation—is only 1.6 per cent. When we look at the prices that Australians are having to wear right now, it's quite extraordinary. Since Labor came to power, food is up 11.4 per cent; housing 14 per cent; rent 14.2 per cent; electricity 21.5 per cent; gas 22.2 per cent; health 11.1 per cent; education 10.9 per cent; financial services 16 per cent—and it goes on. That's not the end of it. Financial services up 16 per cent—the Assistant Treasurer is doing a great job there, isn't he? He really is! It continues to surge under those opposite. That is only part of the economic disaster that we're seeing in front of the country at the moment because we are in a household recession with GDP per capita going backwards for four-quarters in a row. In fact, it hasn't gone up for five-quarters. That's a real household recession. So not only are Australian households seeing sharply rising prices; they're also seeing that GDP per person is going backwards. Despite what those opposite love to say, real wages have collapsed. Here are the numbers. The member for Parramatta had a go at trying to say otherwise but the facts speak for themselves. For a working family, the employee living cost index is employees who earn real wages. The employee living cost index is up over 16 per cent since Labor came to power and nominal wages are up by less than half of that, so real wages are down by 8.9 per cent since they came to power. That is about the purchasing power in your pay packet. What counts is how much your pay packet can buy, how much the money in your bank account can buy. Those opposite are completely mystified by all of this but that is how it works and that has been a complete calamity for Australian households. The data we saw yesterday was totally demoralising for Australian households because it sends a strong signal that interest rates are not going down any time soon. The response in the last 24 hours by markets and economists to this has been to say interest rates are not coming down and it is worse. Over the next 12 months there is real probability of an interest rate increase. In August, the Reserve Bank will have to think hard about whether the absolute abject failures of the three budgets handed down by this government are such that they will have to raise rates. But one thing is clear: they are not going down anytime soon and Australians are going to continue to pay a very high price for that. The Treasurer's answer for that is to hand down a budget where he attempts to manipulate the inflation data. Well, I don't think the Reserve Bank governor is going to take any notice of that absolute nonsense. But it gets worse, because we are absolutely at the back of the pack internationally in dealing with this problem because across peer country after peer country, inflation is coming down as it goes up here. Since December, Sweden is down 2.3 per cent, the UK is down 1.6 per cent, Japan down 1.6 per cent, Norway 1.4, Canada down 0.8; New Zealand, Euro, US, Switzerland, all down. In Australia, which way has inflation gone since December? Up. Four months in a row we have seen it continue to rise. We see economists commenting very quickly on this. They did not take much time. Dr Jim is certainly running out of spin on this one, because they are telling the truth there. Chris Richardson has said, 'Governments have abandoned the field in the inflation fight.' Abandoned the field! 'We are fighting the inflation fight one-handed.' It sure is not the Treasurer's hand that is doing any fighting. Governments are throwing a lot of money at the symptoms of the cost-of-living crisis but are making it worse. That is what Chris Richardson says. David Bassanese, a highly respected economist, said this price report is an absolute 'shocker' and 'places huge pressure on the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates in August'. Canstar's Steve Mickenbecker says the ABS data is 'diabolical'. Moody's economist says Labor's policies 'risk injecting a bunch of new spending into the economy as the Reserve Bank of Australia desperately tries to tighten households' purse strings'—another failure. Shane Oliver said, 'As a result of the May inflation data, the risk of another hike in August is now around 45 per cent.' There is no talk of a rate cut anymore; it is all gone under the policies of this government. There is a better way. It is about going back to basics. It is about getting the supply side of the economy right. It is about not fuelling inflation. There has been $315 billion of extra spending since Labor came to power. That is $30,000 for every Australian household and, I tell you what, I do not hear many households say they feel anything like better. In fact, Australians know they are poorer under Labor because they are poorer under Labor. There was $450 million on a failed referendum, corporate welfare, grants for the union movement, funding of spin units in the Treasurer's office and elsewhere. That is not how you get inflation down. There is a better way. It is about getting Australia back on track by getting back to basics. 15:44 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I love getting a lecture from the member for Hume on power prices because there's not a person in this parliament who is more responsible for the high prices that Australians are paying on their electricity bills today than the member for Hume—not one person in Australia who is more responsible for high energy prices than the member for Hume. I'm not just referring to his squalid attempt to hide from Australians the fact that, on his watch, he was approving an increase in Australia's electricity bills of 20 per cent, as bad as that was; on his watch he was personally responsible for destroying 22 of their own energy policies. Is it any wonder why Australians are paying more for energy prices today than they should be, because for our nine long years in opposition the member for Hume was responsible for white anting, undermining and ensuring that not one of the energy policies they tried to put together ever landed. The member for Hume puts three succinct propositions before us, and I will go to each and every one of them. The first is that Australians are doing it tough, and we acknowledge that. We know Australian households are doing it tough, and inflation is higher than we want it to be. We know that, as Australians are attempting to put their household budgets together and juggling all the bills, they're doing it tough, which is why we are doing what we can in a responsible way to provide some relief for them, whether it's energy bill relief, childcare bill relief, relief on their medicines or relief in other areas. We are doing what we can in a responsible way. Mr JONES A9B The member for Moncrieff wants us to spend more but the member for Hume wants us to spend less! But we acknowledge that Australians are doing it tough; there is no doubt about that. The important thing is what you're going to do about it. The second proposition the member for Hume puts out there, which we freely admit as well, is it has taken us more than two years—and it will take us more than two years—to fix up the diabolical mess they left us. There is absolutely no doubt it will take us more than two years to fix up the diabolical mess they left us, whether it was the skill shortage and the skills deficit they left this country in because they woefully underinvested in skills development or a very, very lazy approach to skills shortages—if we had a short-term skill shortage anywhere, we just imported people. They whinge about immigration now, but that was their skills policy for nine years; their skills policy was an immigration policy. We think we have an obligation to train Australians first and give young people leaving school today their first crack at a job. Whether it was the largest budget deficits on record—I have to say, the member for Hume was blowing a lot of hot air. Inflation is running at four per cent; that is too high, and we want to get it down. He left us with an inflation rate of six per cent. We have managed to bring inflation down by over two per cent over the last two years, but we need to get it down further; there is no doubt about it. They lecture us about spending. I ask members of the House to consider this: their last budget was handed down in March 2022. When inflation was running at six per cent, they handed down a budget in March 2022 with a $78 billion deficit. I'll say that again: with six per cent inflation running into an election, they handed down a budget with a $78 billion deficit. They want to lecture us about fiscal rectitude. These are the doctors of drongo economics. They lecture us about a responsible budget. We have taken over the last two years the necessary steps— Mr JONES A9B The high priest of drongo economics, the eponymous member for Barker, has got a lot to say over there. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Members, I have allowed you to be interjecting throughout this. Member for Petrie, no more. Member for Barker, no more. Mr JONES A9B It is up to the member for Barker to explain why it was responsible economic management to hand down a budget with a $78 billion deficit when inflation was running at six per cent. That is the record that they left us. We have been working assiduously over the last two years to bring the budget back into balance, and we have done that, banking over 90 per cent of new revenue to pay down the debt that they left us. And, because we have been able to pay down the debt that they left us, we are paying $80 billion less in interest rate payments. We have been able to manage the fiscals, and we have been able to bring the budget and the debt down. If you're going to complain about the cost of living and put that in issue then you've got to have a plan to do something about it. Whenever we have brought propositions before the parliament to help Australians, they have opposed every single one of them. Whether they are the sensible, modest and moderate reforms that we've made to workplace relations laws to enable Australians to bargain more fairly and more evenly, particularly low-paid Australians; whether it's supporting applications for an increase in the minimum award wage; or whether it's ensuring that women and workers in highly feminised occupations get a decent pay rise—and I point to the aged-care pay rises that we worked with the unions and the employers to secure—right across the board we are ensuring that we have provided better pay and higher wage increases for Australians over the last two years than the deliberate design policy of those opposite, which was to see wages go backwards. They have opposed every single one of them. Consider the investment in skills and the investment in health. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any member of this place would want to vote against a proposition which saw pensioners and people doing it tough pay less for medicine, but they did. They opposed those propositions. The third proposition that we're invited to accept from the member for Hume is that the answer to higher energy prices today is a nuclear power station that will be delivered in 2045. If you say it slowly and you say it like that, you're able to understand how bat-poop crazy that actually is: the answer to people's power bills and the pressure that they are feeling today is a nuclear power station that will not deliver one new watt of energy until 2045. When it's put like that, you can see what a crazy proposition it is. But then, when you unpick it and you understand the economics of what they're actually proposing, these things can't be delivered without massive taxpayer subsidies. We are talking about a $1,000 per year tax on every Australian household to deliver their nuclear fantasy. It's not a policy. It's not a plan. It's ideology dressed up as economics by the high priests of drongo economics. They know they can't deliver it. It will not deliver one new watt of energy, which is why they won't release the costings and why they won't be honest with the Australian people. We are less than 12 months from the next election. Over the next 12 months, in the lead-up to the next election, we will have two competing plans for the future of Australia before the Australian people. One plan is about a future made in Australia. It's about Australians, Australian business and an Australian government which holds its head up high and says: 'We have the confidence to back Australian ingenuity and Australian resourcefulness to ensure that we maximise our natural advantages, whether they be in energy or in other areas of manufacturing and manufacturing capacity. We have the confidence to back Australians and to back Australia. We have a plan for a future made in Australia.' That is one of the competing propositions, that is the proposition of the Albanese Labor government. And that proposition will be put up against the proposition by the Leader of the Opposition, which is that the answer is a nuclear power plant and a $1,000 per household tax on every Australian household, with not one new watt of electricity to be delivered until 2045. 15:54 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member for Whitlam visited my electorate last week. He came to Wagga Wagga upon my invitation and conducted an antiscams forum with me. I want to publicly acknowledge and thank him for the work that he is doing in this important public policy area, which is building on what we did as a coalition government. I now want to take him up on the fact that he said Labor inherited 'a diabolical mess'. What they inherited was a nation which was rated, judged, by the John Hopkins institute, no less, as being the second-best nation in the world for its COVID-19 response. By spending money—yes, a lot of it—we kept tens of thousands of Australians alive. We kept tens of thousands of Australians in jobs and kept the doors open for tens of thousands of businesses. We did that despite the backdrop of those opposite being very negative about lots of the policies that we put forward and the state Labor premiers also often being obstinate when we were trying to bring forward good policies in what was a terrible time of a global pandemic. On budget night this year, the respected economist Chris Richardson had this to say: My big ask of the Budget was that it didn't poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it passed that test. The government said it would be careful not to frontload its new costs. But that's exactly what it did—its new dollars are both big AND fast. In the coming year they're eight times the size of what they are by 2027-28. So this budget narrows the Reserve Bank's already narrow path. Inflation is high. It is too high, and it's going up and up under Labor. Today in the Australian, Mr Richardson is critical of the decisions by federal and state governments, and every mainland state in Australia is under the steed of a Labor government. He talks about decisions in recent budgets to pour billions of additional dollars into the economy under the guise of cost-of-living relief that could ultimately make life harder for struggling households by keeping inflation higher for longer. This is what he said: Governments are throwing a lot of money at the symptoms of the cost-of-living crisis, but that worsens the cause of it. And the cause is too many dollars chasing two little stuff … Governments have abandoned the field in the inflation fight. We are fighting the inflation fight one-handed. When we talk about being one-handed, we've got a lot of families and small business owners with their hand very much behind their backs, because they are struggling, and it is tough out there. I know the member for Whitlam acknowledged that and so did the Shadow Treasurer in their contributions to this matter of public importance discussion. It is so tough for people out there. I ask this question of people who might be listening to this broadcast: are you better off now, or were you better off prior to May 2022? People are much the poorer now. In fact, most households are paying a thousand dollars more on their power bills than they were when the coalition was in government. Ms Bell 282981 Shame! Mr McCORMACK 219646 That is a shame, member for Moncrieff. Indeed, they are paying more for rent—that's if you can find affordable housing. Those people who have mortgage rates are doing it so very tough at the moment. It is so difficult to get into the housing market, and Labor are making it just more difficult by their policies and by what they do every day. Of course, then we've got those people trying to make ends meet when they go to the grocery store. They are getting fewer groceries and they are paying more for them. They are paying more for petrol every time they go to the petrol browser. We just see no end in sight to this mess. We need to get Australia back on track. As the Leader of the Opposition has said repeatedly, what we will do when next in government is rein in inflationary spending to take the pressure off inflation. The member for Rankin doesn't get that. He is the Treasurer; he ought to get it. We'll not be spending $13.7 billion on corporate welfare for green hydrogen and critical minerals. Some of the policies in the energy space and some of what Labor is doing to pay $107 million to Western Australian sheep farmers to stop farming is just a nonsense, and it's causing inflationary pressures. It is making things more difficult. We'll wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses from getting ahead. That's what we should be doing. We should be helping our businesses, supporting our businesses, supporting the economy and making sure that we address cost-of-living pressures. 15:59 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser When I saw that the member for Hume was raising a motion on macroeconomics, I thought to myself, 'Members of the government are really going to have to bone up on our material, because this is going to be a very erudite, very rigorous and compelling presentation we're going to receive.' So I went to my handy fiscal strategy evaluation handbook, which is a handbook that evaluates various fiscal strategies by their short- and medium-term impacts on prices. I was flicking through when I found one approach to fiscal strategy, and it was 'coffee mug, back in black'. I flicked to that section and it said: 'The short-term impact on prices in the economy is an increase in ceramic prices.' It gave some examples, of the tulip mania and other examples of price spikes, but it said that, in 2020, there was an example of where the price of coffee mugs spiked to $35 a mug as a result of this strategy, and the medium-term impact of this strategy was an increase in waste management services, as thousands of mugs were sent to municipal waste service centres. So this strategy had no positive impact on prices. I flicked to something more traditional, 'fiscal responsibility'. I found a quote from the IMF, which said that 'fiscal tightening makes it possible to increase interest rates by less, in order to contain inflation'. What I found when I looked at that and compared it to the government's strategy is that the government has, in fact, brought down consecutive surpluses, after having inherited a $78 billion deficit, and that the government, not only having done that, has banked high proportions of the fiscal uplift that has occurred during this term, as a result of stronger labour markets, as a result of stronger nominal wages—which is part of our design—and as a result of higher resources prices, and that the budget is $215 billion better off. So it becomes clear from the fiscal strategy evaluation handbook that fiscal responsibility is better than 'coffee mug, back in black'. Then I looked at another couple of policies. One was 'nuclear pipe dreams, SMR'. I had to go to the glossary, and that said it was 'small, mythical reactors'. That led to a short-term price rise in paper costs, as a result of a flurry of press releases. But what it said was that, in the medium term, there was no macroeconomic impact on energy production for 20 to 25 years after the announcement of this policy. There was no extra production in the energy network. But what it did find was that there would be massive, skewed allocation in the capital markets, which would lead to higher energy prices. I flicked to an alternative policy, 'clean energy transition'. What that found was that clean energy transition led to higher certainty in energy markets, better and more efficient capital allocation and lower costs for capital. It found that the clean energy transition dealt with environmental externalities. It found that it was skewing the energy market towards lower marginal cost producers, putting downward pressure on energy prices. It also found that clean energy transition was most effective when it was coupled with effective cost-of-living measures. One example of those were the measures introduced by the government in 2023, voted against by those opposite, which led to electricity prices rising far less than they would have if those opposite had got their way. They increased 6.5 per cent, having had the government intervention, versus 14.5 per cent if the opposition had had their way and there had been no intervention in markets. Again, the fiscal strategy evaluation handbook and looking at the impact on prices showed that 'clean energy transition' was a far superior policy for prices, both in the short-term and the long-term, compared to 'nuclear pipe dreams, small mythical reactors'. Then I went to a couple of case studies and there was 'inflation trajectory, Morrison government', where inflation was tracking up, where inflation was handed over to the incoming government with a six in front of it, and where there was the highest quarterly increase in a decade. Then I looked at 'inflation trajectory, Albanese government', and what I found there was that there was the subheading 'inflation down'—that inflation had more than halved; that inflation was significantly lower than what they'd inherited, both in terms of core inflation and headline inflation. So the fiscal strategy evaluation handbook came in quite handy, to rebut some of the very sophisticated macroeconomic arguments put to us. It showed very clearly that fiscal responsibility, clean energy transition and the government's strategies are the best way to deal with the inflation problem. 16:04 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker What we've just heard from the member for Fraser underscores exactly where we're at. These are comedy-style, pithy contributions that seek to make light of the fact that Australians are doing it tough. In fact, I'd argue they've never done it tougher. Another question time has come and gone. It's been another week. And in every single contribution from the Prime Minister we've heard various versions of, 'Australians have never had it better.' Then we transition to the Treasurer, if you like, and he gives us a slightly different version. It's imbued with this sense of, 'Well, aren't those Aussies lucky that I've got my hands on the Treasury levers?' Newsflash to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: Australians aren't feeling very lucky right now. In fact, Australians are feeling poorer and colder. We'll talk about 'colder' in a minute, but let's talk about 'poorer'. They're poorer, of course, because, as we've heard about, real wages are plummeting. It's probably not hard or surprising, because food is up 11 per cent, housing 14 per cent, gas 22 per cent, the cost of health care 11 per cent and education 10 per cent. If you were a prime minister coming to government, cognisant of the fact that there were going to be real challenges around inflation and the lifestyles of Australians, you'd make it your No. 1 priority from day 1. That's what the late Bob Hawke would have done. He was in touch with the Australian zeitgeist. Whether it was having a beer at the front bar or talking to people at the cricket, he got real Australians. Unfortunately, what we have is a prime minister who spends too much time in the Lodge, too much time overseas and too much time in private jets, and that causes him to come into this place and say to the people assembled in this chamber and via broadcast to the rest of Australia, 'Haven't you got it good?' Well, I'm telling you, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have not got it good. If it wasn't enough that they're paying more at the checkout, at the bowser and in their electricity bills—we have longer lines at places like Foodbank, and all members of parliament are hearing that same feedback—the worst is yet to come. Those opposite, via their three failed budgets, are making the job of the RBA harder. The Member for Fremantle over there laughs. He laughs at the prospect of interest rates going up and up and up. People in the gallery get it. They are getting their interest rate bills. They know what is really hurting Australians. There are Australians right now who are choosing between heating or eating. That is the truth. In a country as wealthy as ours, pensioners are deciding whether to keep the heater on or have a meal, and this is where they're not only poorer but colder. You know what? It's not just the fiscal policies of those opposite; it's also their approach on other issues. If you want to put downward pressure on prices, do you reckon you'd unleash the union movement? Would you unleash John Setka? Off he runs! The cost of construction is hitting the roof. Wait for it—I know what I'd do! In coming into government, my No. 1 priority being to put downward pressure on the cost of living, I'd spend close to half-a-billion dollars on the Voice referendum! That's what we should have done! Goodness! Australians have worked out those opposite. They come to the dispatch box now, two years too late, and say, 'Our No.1 priority is cost-of-living pressures.' Minister after minister is asked that question, but I ask Australians: don't listen to what they're saying; look at what they've done. What they've done has put upward pressure on prices, upward pressure on interest rates and has made every Australian poorer and colder. 16:09 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Fair dinkum, have you ever heard five minutes of more dribble in all your life? You would have thought, as he scurries out of the chamber, that they'd have voted for every single cost-of-living measure put in place that brings down prices of food, energy, medicine and increases the ability to go to doctors. But they didn't; they voted against every single one. Not one single cost-of-living measure that we have put in for the last two years have those opposite supported. In fact, today we find out in the Senate they had the opportunity to put more affordable housing out for people to be able to get access to cheap, affordable housing where they want to live. Guess what? The old mates in the tory party over there decided they want to vote against that because they think the only people that should have houses are their rich mates. Why would you do that if you want to come and bring in an MPI that talks about cost of living and talks about that? In four sleeps—four days—every single Australian taxpayer is going to get a tax cut to help. Every single Australian taxpayer! We have the member for Petrie over there who cries every day because of the changes we made to make sure that people on low and middle incomes got tax cuts. His got halved, and now the poor fellow is upset that he's not getting 10 grand extra in his pocket. He's upset that he's not getting that, but to do that we made sure that people on normal incomes receive money in their pocket. They're the ones that need it. Not the member for Petrie and not those sitting opposite that come in here and bellow and carry on about the cost of living, when every single time there has been an opportunity to support people doing it tough those opposite have voted against it. I'm going to say something that will floor people. Listen to the member for Barker. As he said, don't listen to what they say, listen to what they do. So grab his voting record and see that every single time, without fail, he has voted against cost-of-living measures to help people—cheaper medicines, 60-day prescriptions, making sure that pensioners who do it tough have their PBS capped so they're not going to be more out of pocket. When we came into government, inflation was going up and had a six in front of it. It was six per cent and it kept going, it was on that trajectory. But what we did was turn that around. We know it still isn't where we want it to be, but I tell you what, it's a damn sight closer than what it was and what it would have been if they'd still been in power. We talk about a housing crisis. The housing crisis did not start the day they lost power. There were multiple times during the Turnbull and Morrison mess that they even talked about a housing crisis. Way back in 2017. Yet it continued. The difference is that we actually go out of our way to try and address and fix those problems. They sat on their hands. Remember old smoking Joe Hockey, 'We will deliver a surplus in our first year and every year.' Now, I'm not sure who's really good at maths—we won't rely on that lot—but if you've had nine years in government and you've delivered no surpluses, in fact you left a trillion dollars of debt, I'm tipping that they would be choking on their black mugs. They spent more money on black mugs and doing those fancy, flash ads with Josh Frydenberg and Morrison running down the corridor. 'We've got the budget back in surplus.' Nine budgets, nine deficits, and they left the biggest debt in history. We get in, and in our first two budgets there are two surpluses. In fact we wiped $150 billion—just like that—off the deficit. We actually stand up for Australians. They want to stand on them. They think it's only the elites and their rich mates that deserve help and support. But we know it's people on the NDIS, it's pensioners, it's people doing it hard—mums and dad in Australia everywhere. That's why we supported and brought in the HECS debt cuts, which make sure people doing it tough have the support. We're bringing in the energy rebate, $300 off everyone's power bill. You don't hear them crowing about that. By the way, where's the $550 you promised when you were in government. You never delivered it. In fact you made it dearer and harder and you have never, ever stood around and supported people doing it tough. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 A point of order from the member for Moncrieff? Ms Bell 282981 Point of order on 65(a). The member should put his comments through the Deputy Speaker. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Perhaps you should listen. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 This is not an opportunity for debate. I remind all members, as I did earlier in this debate, to direct their comments through me. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E That's why I related that to them. (Time expired) 16:15 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Those opposite very much like to talk about the tax cut that they're bringing in in four days time. They've spoken about it for five months. They've spent $40 million of taxpayer money selling those tax cuts. On the same day that we found out about that $40 million of taxpayer money they're spending, we also heard their announcement that they were prepared to spend $14 million to support food banks all across the country. So, as the member for McEwen said, let's not look at what they say; let's look at what they do. What they do is spend $40 million to spin politics to suit their own agenda and $14 million to actually help the Australian people. That tax change is $15 a week for the Australian people. It's $15 extra, and, in this cost-of-living crisis created by this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, every dollar counts. The other little part that they don't like to talk about—and they get very upset when we talk about this fact. Many Australians will remember this: last year when they put in their tax return they were waiting for that big tax return. They were waiting for about $1,500 to hit their bank account. It got quite viral on social media because people were so upset. That $1,500 wasn't there. It disappeared. It wasn't there, because this government made a choice to let that low- and middle-income tax offset lapse. They chose to let it lapse because they were in government. They will try to say: 'It was already in the legislation. We didn't have a choice.' Well, guess what? You lost that argument when in February this year the Prime Minister broke his word and changed the stage 3 tax cuts. If you can change the stage 3 tax cuts, guess what? You can change the low- and middle-income offset and give the Australian people an extra $1,500. So do not lecture us about the cost-of-living crisis and do not lecture us about the changes that you've made when last year you walked away from the $1,500 that would have made a difference for the Australian people. Those opposite like to talk about the surpluses that are coming. They talk about the two budget surpluses they delivered. What they don't talk about is how they got delivered. Under FOI from the AFR we can see the RBA did an internal analysis. This is what the RBA actually think, because it's internal. They didn't think it would become public. The government tried to hide it. The FOI brought it out. They said: … revenue upgrades in 2023-24 were due to external factors, including strong commodity prices … That means it was nothing to do with the government. They inherited commodity prices through mining that put revenues up: Over the forward estimates, policy decisions are expected to result in a cumulative deterioration in the underlying cash balance of $24.3 billion … That means budget policy decisions. That means the decisions of those opposite are driving spending up: Policy decisions since [the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook] have reduced the underlying cash balance by around $10 billion in each of the next two financial years. The analysis goes on to say that the budget is: … slightly expansionary … That's from the RBA. What that tells you is that, at a time when inflation is already above the band, if you spend more money and you drive an expansionary budget you see results like Wednesday, when inflation jumped from 3.6 per cent to four per cent. They will spin a top line number of a surplus that they had no control over. They got lucky because of the mining sector's increased taxes from bracket creep. But their decisions, from the RBA's own analysis, show that they're running an expansionary budget. That is why inflation is continuing to go up, and that is why there is a risk and why economists are saying we could see an interest rate rise in August. Let's be clear: if we see that interest rate rise in August, it's on this Prime Minister, it's on this Treasurer and it's on this government because it's their decisions that are leading to that interest rate increase. (Time expired.) 16:20 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I think it's always important to remember why we're here, and the reason why we're here is to make sure that we can make a big difference on the lives of Australians and their households. Sometimes, it's a bit exhausting in this chamber, where you have this side and that side—it's a bit of a sling match—but the truth is what we want to do is make sure that we help household budgets. I know that our Treasurer is working hard every day to make sure that we are making a real, tangible difference, and we see him working close in hand with our finance minister. Tackling inflation is not an easy job. I'm not going to pretend that it's as simple as one plus two. It's really challenging, and the thing that I know that we have been doing is being really intentional with the decisions that we make. I think it's also interesting to see that the Liberals have been stirred up by the monthly CPI indicators that were released yesterday. As the Treasurer has said many times, the monthly CPI number is volatile and it can jump around because not every item in the basket is updated each month. So I tell those opposite: hold your breath. Don't get ahead of yourselves, because the ABS figures also confirm that inflation would be even higher if it weren't for Labor's cost-of-living policies. We know that inflation at this time is almost half of what it was at the time of the last election—half. We also know that inflation is lower than it was when Labor came into office. The government is fully aware that we need to moderate further and faster, and this government is doing its bit to see this happen. It's taking responsible and considered actions to tackle inflation by managing the economy at the same time as delivering important cost-of-living relief for millions of Australians. Labor's cost-of-living measures are designed to assist the economy and manage these inflation pressures. We understand that people are worried about paying their mortgages and concerned about interest rates. We are listening and we are acting. Over the past few months, I've spoken with many people in my community to understand their struggles. This year, I've had 15 mobile offices in my community, hearing from people in my community through surveys, through phone calls and also through knocking on the doors and speaking to businesses because that's what Labor does. We are proactive. This is why we've decided to deliver cheaper medicine. This is why we're delivering on help to rent and we're helping with student debt. Every household in Australia will receive $300 in electricity relief. Luckily, in Western Australia we're teaming up with the Cook Labor state government and households will get $700 in WA. We have a strategy that is responsible and fair. This is what we're doing. We need to make sure that we do this in ways that protect the economy, not destroy it, which is what the Liberals threatened to do with the release of their mad policy on nuclear energy. It is a policy that would put enormous pressures on cost, and they're not even suggesting that the private sector do this. The private sector won't do it, because it's a stupid idea and the economics do not stack up. It will take longer, it will cost more, it will deliver less, and they want to do it on the taxpayers' purse. It is outrageous. The nuclear energy policy will deliver less because it won't be ready for decades. It will cost more because it is the most expensive form of energy. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and what do they come up with? 'Let's get the most expensive thing off the shelf!' Like, please, come on. The truth is, in WA, in Australia, people know what a fake looks like. We saw that at the last election. People said to our former prime minister Scott Morrison, 'That's a fake.' And you know what? The people of Australia know that nuclear is not a real policy; it is a fake policy. I don't know why they're putting all their eggs in this one nuclear basket. If I had my ovary eggs in that nuclear basket, I wouldn't want that happening! So they were wrong, and they continue to make wrong decisions. I am proud of this Labor government. 16:25 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies The member for Swan threw me off a bit there! For those up in the public gallery who have come to visit and watch, what we are doing now is called 'matters of public importance'—thank you for the wave! Question time is where the government comes in and tells us how good they are, and they do that a lot. Matters of public importance are where we tell them, 'Not so fast!' And we do it in a way that, hopefully, addresses the issues that are important to you and important to all Australians. Right now there is no more important an issue than the rising prices of food, electricity, fuel and housing. I want to tell you a story that was told to me that is heartbreaking. A young mum came to me and told me about how she was putting items of fresh food back on the shelf—they included eggs and fresh meat—because she couldn't afford it. She did it in front of her children and she said she felt ashamed. She then said a few days later she had to cancel a school camp—and those in the gallery might be here for a camp like that—because she couldn't afford it. And then she said, 'I feel like I'm letting my family down.' And so while we're talking in here of a cost-of-living crisis, that's where the rubber hits the road for people throughout this nation. They are feeling like they are letting their families down. Except they didn't create the circumstances that are leading to that. They're doing their very best with the circumstances that are before them, but it is not their doing. Now, in a matter of public importance, and one as important as this where we're hearing stories like that, you would think the government would turn their full attention to it. You would think so. Instead, on many, many issues we've seen jokes told, memes shared. Australians expect more—and full credit to many members of the government who are here today; not all of you engage in that sort of rhetoric, and many of you didn't on the recent nuclear debate and you didn't share Simpsons memes. It is important, when we are looking at the critical task of reducing inflation, that we don't just look at the symptoms, we look at the cause. We know what it is like to use metaphor when people look at the symptoms and not the cause. Imagine a scenario where someone borrowed your car. They ran it into the ground; they didn't look after it properly and there's a noise in it. We know a noise in an engine means something's wrong. What's their cure? They turn the radio up so you don't hear it. Or imagine a scenario where you're not feeling well, the room is too hot and one of your housemates is turning the heating up all the time. They alone can turn it down, but instead they give you a glass of water. Or to go back to the car metaphor: someone has punctured a tyre and their solution isn't to fix the puncture, but to keep putting air in it. That's what it means to just look at the symptoms and not the cause. When this government talks about addressing inflation, we hear from the talking points and out in the media, again and again, that they are giving you money to say, 'It's alright; you've never had it so good,' as many speakers said before. 'Here; I'm helping.' But for every dollar the government gives you, we are seeing multiples in price increases. I want to take you to them. The shadow Treasurer noted that food was up 11.4 per cent. When you look at the compound increase—and compound returns can go for you or go against you—that means on that rate, if it continues, food doubles every six years—it doubles. With power, electricity is up 21.5 per cent. Again, on a compound increase, if that stays that means it doubles every 3½ years. Gas is up 22.2 per cent; that doubles every three years. We are talking about significant numbers for a country where the average wage is about $95,000, and for half of all Australians it's the median wage—half or less—of $65,000. These are serious numbers, and we should always turn our minds to the people who are standing at shopping centres who are saying, 'I'm letting my family down.' (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The time for the debate has concluded. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 79 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 39 of 2023-24 79 16:30 The SPEAKER 53517 I present a corrigendum to the Auditor-General's audit performance report No. 39 of 2023-24, entitled Evaluation of Australian government pilot programs: Department of Health and Aged Care, Department of Veterans' Affairs, Department of Home Affairs. ADJOURNMENT 79 ADJOURNMENT Muntz, Mr Robert Howard (Bob), Taxation 80 16:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Bob Muntz, a longstanding member of the Victorian Greens, passed away last month. I express on behalf of the Australian Greens our condolences to his family. Bob was the cherished husband of MaryCon and a devoted father of Alice and Julian. Bob was born in 1947 in Geelong, went to school in Colac and, after obtaining a degree from Monash University and in 1968 beginning a Master of Science at the University of Melbourne, very quickly became active in opposition to the Vietnam War, which subsequently led to him being sacked from his work with the department of agriculture after the intervention of the infamous police Special Branch. Bob was called up to fight in Vietnam in 1967 and became a founding member of the Draft Resisters Union. Subsequently Bob went underground until the December 1972 election ended Australia's involvement in the war. Bob's deep commitment to social justice and the liberation of the people of South-East Asia was formed during this period and shaped the rest of his life as he continued to work tirelessly with aid agencies such as Oxfam and with trade unions and solidarity movements—including with the Philippines, Indonesia and East Timor, where he was a witness to the Santa Cruz massacre in Dili and where he was wounded. Bob joined the Greens, standing for election in 2007, and was an important part of the Greens' international work as well as many local Greens activities. As someone who shared a local branch with him, I want to thank Bob Muntz for his tireless efforts and his continued personal support. In the short time I have it's impossible to sum up the incredible life Bob had, but there can be no better conclusion than the words of East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta, who said, 'Bob's passing leaves a huge gap in the global struggle for justice and human rights', and, 'His memory will continue to inspire future generations of activists and defenders of freedom, peace and human rights.' Vale, Bob Muntz. There are 91 coal and gas corporations and corporate entities operating in Australia, but going through the tax database we found that 54 of those 91 corporations paid no tax—not a cent. Just to spell that out: for every coal and gas corporation operating in this country, three out of five of them paid no tax. And those 54 companies boasted $100 billion in income last year. So $100 billion in income but not a cent in tax—what an absolute scam! Seventy per cent of gas corporations in Australia don't pay any tax. Thirty-three gas corporations earned over $68 billion in revenue and didn't pay any tax. Petronas Australia—$1.14 billion in total income, no tax paid. TotalEnergies—$2.6 billion in revenue, no tax paid. Chevron Australia Downstream Holdings—$5 billion in total income, no tax paid. ExxonMobil Australia—$15.5 billion in total income, no tax paid. They have never once paid tax in eight years of corporate tax reports. Coal companies aren't much better. Half of them avoided paying any tax, and the half who didn't made a tidy $28 billion in total income. To top it all off, some of these coal and gas corporations are getting handouts from the government subsidised by the taxpayer. That's billions of dollars that could be used for more housing, mental health care, disability support and students struggling with completely unaffordable degrees. We're all victims of a grand extortion, a swindle, a fraud—and Labor and the coalition are all in on it. In the 2023 financial year the major parties received $2 million in donations from fossil fuel corporations, companies like Adani, Woodside, Santos and Chevron—and they're just the ones we know about, due to our broken donations system. And what do we get? A Labor government that's giving 14 times more money to corporations to turbocharge the climate and cost-of-living crises than it's giving to the national disaster relief fund. It's a joke, and people are sick of it. There's not a gas shortage in Australia; there's a shortage of integrity. There's a shortage of politicians who actually represent their constituents and not the interests of coal and gas corporations that are paying them. One nurse shouldn't pay more tax than the 33 gas corporations. One teacher shouldn't pay more tax than 21 coal companies. If the old parties think they can continue to get away with this rort, they've got another think coming. People are sick of the status quo. They're sick of watching corporations profit, and pollute, while their lives get harder. We need change. Future Made in Australia, Pearce Electorate: Infrastructure 80 16:35 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce The Albanese Labor government is investing in a future made in Australia by funding more local infrastructure, targeting investments to resources and a clean energy future and supporting small businesses and jobs. The focus is on bringing new jobs and opportunities to communities in every part of our country, including my electorate of Pearce, to power a new generation of advanced manufacturing. A significant part of our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package will help us maximise the economic and industrial benefits of the international move to net zero and secure Australia's place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. The Albanese Labor government continues to deliver on an ambitious reform agenda to strengthen the vocational education and training sector, close national skills gaps and train the skilled workforce that we need right across the economy, where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. To consider what is possible in the future, it is worth looking at the history and current status of manufacturing in Western Australia and in the Pearce electorate. In 2004, Western Australia's Department of Treasury and Finance produced a research paper entitled An economic history of Western Australia since colonial settlement, which provides some interesting insights into the economic development of WA. It says: Between 1913 and 1946, the economy underwent significant structural change and economic growth was uneven at best. As the effects of the gold rush died down, mining's share of the economy declined and both the rural and manufacturing industries' shares increased … This was in contrast to the rest of Australia, where manufacturing activity became an even larger part of the economy. Whilst some manufacturing industries were developed during the early post-war period, it says: A major surge in the State's manufacturing industry came with the advent of a substantial mineral processing industry. Pioneering families in Pearce continue to be proactive and focused mainly on agribusiness and establishing horticultural businesses in and around Wanneroo. Today, there are over 12,000 small businesses in the Pearce electorate. We continue to have a successful and visionary horticultural industry. And we have two major industrial areas situated at Wangara and Neerabup. Wangara is one of Perth's busiest industrial estates. It has a wide range of industrial services, warehouses and commercial services. Manufacturing companies in Wangara include the Adwest Group, a metals fabrication company; Aries Rail Pty Ltd, a specialist rail company; Boss Bollards; Tower Security; Glide Products Pty Ltd, one of Australia's leading manufacturers of high-quality manual and powered wheelchairs; and Burdens Australia, a manufacturer and supplier of civil, electrical, plumbing, rail, water and environmental solutions. The development of the Neerabup industrial area is a key strategic priority as well. Currently, manufacturers include Wesbeam, which is Australia's only LVL manufacturer and distributor; David Moss Corporation, which manufactures and supplies pipes, fittings and underground ventilation systems to all of Australia and international markets; and Klen International, which specialises in the manufacture and supply of fire assay fluxes to the mining and geochemical assay laboratory markets worldwide. The Albanese Labor government is embarking on a new set of interventions with a new industry policy that focuses on advanced manufacturing and research and development, including commercialisation and the maximum feasible benefits to be gleaned from our natural resources. Last week, I visited the Neerabup industrial estate that allows for a new facility, the Australian Automation and Robotics Precinct, to provide businesses with opportunities for automation and robotics testing, research and development, training and industry cluster development. In addition, there will be a North Wanneroo agribusiness precinct, a light industrial and service commercial precinct in Yanchep and Two Rocks, and a Neerabup waste innovation precinct has also been identified. I am confident that going forward there will be opportunities for businesses in the Pearce electorate to participate in value adding to our resources and to support critical minerals being processed and refined locally, as well as strengthen our innovation, digital and science capability going forward. The Albanese Labor government will establish opportunities for investors with major transformational investment proposals to make a it simpler to invest in our nation and to attract more global and domestic capital. I believe his businesses in my community can be part of a Future Made in Australia and they have my full support. Housing 81 16:40 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Housing is more than just a basic human need. It is the foundation upon which individuals build their lives, their dreams and their futures. For those living with disabilities, accessible and specially designed housing is not a luxury; it is a vital necessity. Purpose-built housing offers tailored environments that accommodate the unique needs of individuals, promoting their well-being and enabling them to participate fully in all aspects of life. Consider the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in our current housing landscape. Many are confined to spaces that do not cater their needs, forcing them to navigate environments that are not only inconvenient but often hazardous. This lack of suitable housing restricts independence, hampers quality of life and places undue distress on families and caregivers. Purpose-built housing with features such as widened doorways, roll-in showers, adjustable countertops and assistive technologies can transform lives. It can provide a safe, accessible and comfortable living environment where individuals with disabilities can thrive. These homes serve as a foundation for greater inclusion, enabling residents to engage more fully in their communities, pursue employment activities and contribute to a shared prosperity. Investing in purpose-built housing is not merely a compassionate act; it is an economically sound decision. The need for housing, let alone purpose-built housing for those living with a disability, is at a crisis point in Capricornia. Anglicare Central Queensland released their rental affordability snapshot earlier this year and what they found is deeply concerning for those who are in the rental market. They found that, of the 317 rental properties on the market on 16 March and 17, only three per cent were suitable for those living on income support such as JobSeeker or the disability support payment. In 2020, I was thrilled to deliver $950,000 through the former coalition government's Building Better Regions Fund for Multicap to construct purpose-built housing for those with high-needs disabilities. I have long championed the invaluable work that Multicap undertakes in Rockhampton and have witnessed firsthand the way they have changed the lives of those in their care. Understanding the crucial importance of delivering funding to support Multicap's efforts to provide safe and practical housing highlights the significant impact it has on the lives of individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, this is lost on those opposite. Last year I was appalled to learn that the department of infrastructure responsible for overseeing the Building Better Regions Fund had significantly cut Multicap's funding for their accessibility housing project. Following extensive lobbying to the minister for infrastructure, the department's decision was reversed. This reversal was a victory, not only for Multicap but, more importantly, for those who benefit from homes designed to enhance their quality of life. In April this year with much fanfare and public attention Labor proudly cut the ribbon on Multicap's housing project in Rockhampton. Yet again, just last week, I was dismayed to learn that the department had decided to withdraw more than $275,000 from the final payment. This unexpected and unjustified decision undermined the hard work and dedication that went into the project. I never imagined that I would have to lobby so vigorously once more for this project, urging the minister for infrastructure to intervene and overturn the absurd decision to withdraw a substantial amount of promised funding for a crucial housing initiative. Thankfully, I was informed by the Multicap team yesterday that the decision had been reversed and they would retain their funding. This is a fantastic outcome for Multicap and the clients and families they serve. I'm honoured to be able to support my community in this way. However, it should never have reached this point, particularly for a second time. The mental anguish and stress it has caused the team at Multicap is beyond comprehension. Their distress at such a de-commitment for a second time, mere months after opening, is further proof that this government is in a state of chaos and lacks control. I will continue my unwavering fight for Capricornia, dedicating myself to the prosperity of our region and holding the Labor government to account. Lachlan Macquarie Institute, McCallum, Mr Luke, Parliamentary Friends of Nutrition 82 16:44 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I would like to acknowledge the work of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute. The institute is an organisation that raises up Christian leaders to engage in the political sphere. The institute offers three-month residential programs twice a year, in autumn and summer, that equip leaders in foundations of theology, history, political theories, law, government, and public policy. They also provide training in debating, public speaking, media training and negotiation training, which further provide fellows the opportunity to hone their practical skills. The LMI's mission statement is centred on the premise of wise Christian leadership and seeking to make decisions for the common good. A current fellow in the autumn program is an intern in my office for the week, Mary Fernandez, who has come from Brisbane and, on top of the learnings above, is now experiencing a real winter. From Mary's perspective, this program has been a significantly transformative experience. She has gained an understanding of the importance of how Christianity intersects with the public sphere. She has received an invaluable opportunity, gaining a better understanding of the ideas that shape our world and what it means to be a wise leader. I thank her for joining and contributing to my team here at Parliament House this week, and I wish her well for her future endeavours. Earlier this month I had the privilege of meeting Luke McCallum, who's currently representing Australia at the 2024 warrior games. The US Department of Defense Warrior Games brings together hundreds of wounded, ill and injured active-duty and veteran military members to compete in adapted sports as part of their recovery journeys. Luke joined the Royal Australian Navy in 1997, four weeks after his 17th birthday. He served for almost 20 years as a communications and information systems sailor. His service took him on operations all over the world, including the Solomon Islands, East Timor and the Middle East, and on border protection duties around the approaches to Australia from 2001 until 2005. His service came at a great physical cost. Collective injuries deteriorated to the point that an infection in his right leg got into the bone, necessitating a below-knee amputation. But, through sport, Luke has not let this stop him. As I speak, Luke is currently competing for Australia, and I'm pleased to inform the House that as of today Luke had already won two silver medals in his indoor rowing events, with three more days of competition to go. I congratulate Luke on his performance so far and I look forward to catching up with him to hear all about this when he returns to Australia. Earlier this week the Parliamentary Friends of Nutrition came together to discuss healthy lunch boxes for kids. It was great to see participation from the members for Fowler and Hunter—there's a contrast!—as well as Senator Colbeck in packing a healthy kids lunch and being judged by the very serious Miss Sienna. The broader event discussed the importance of healthy food choices in the context of early childhood education and care. Dietitians Australia have emphasised the importance of providing healthy food options for children in early childhood and education care settings. I'd like to remind the House of three important tips for better school lunch box nutrition: (1) look for the health star rating displayed on the front of food packages and select products with a high rating; (2) keep food safe by using an insulated lunch box and packing in an ice brick; and, finally, make the lunch box fun and interesting, doing small things like making fun-shaped sandwiches, fruit or vegetables—potentially advice that we could bring into this parliament as well! But, seriously, if we can address nutritional issues at an early age, we can set children up for a healthier adulthood, and that's something that we should all be supporting in this House. Anderson, Mr Neil William 83 16:49 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak today about a remarkable young man, Neil William Anderson, a brilliant scientific mind and an inventor, with a loving network of family and friends. Born in 1995, Neil grew up in a loving family home, with his sister, Elise, and his devoted parents, Keith and Joan Anderson—and I acknowledge Neil's parents presence in the gallery today. Neil loved the outdoors; he enjoyed overnight hikes with his dad, where they would laugh off the challenges of roughing it. Attending St Peter's Catholic College on the New South Wales Central Coast, Neil excelled in science and received the school's citizenship award in 2008, recognising his contribution to college life in an honest, courteous, and inclusive manner. While at school he undertook part-time jobs as an electronics technician and a database developer. After completing his HSC in 2013, Neil undertook a Bachelor of Engineering with a Bachelor of Science at Macquarie University, majoring in electronic engineering and physical chemistry. Recognised for his talent and promise, Neil was awarded the Macquarie University CBMS Research Scholarship in 2015. During his time at university, Neil also worked as an associate researcher into semiconductors and as a lab demonstrator, teaching year 11 and 12 students and conducting experiments on water quality. In 2020, Neil graduated with honours, writing about the optimisation of materials and device architecture for solution processed electronics. Beyond his studies, Neil was a regular donor to and supporter of the veterans' charity Soldier On. In March 2020, he completed the March On Challenge by walking a total of 100 kilometres in the Blue Mountains to raise money for the prevention of veteran suicide. With his sights set on pursuing a career in nuclear science, Neil completed an internship at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, where he tested newly developed semiconductor materials. Still a young man, Neil proved himself as a pioneer and entrepreneur. After his time at Lucas Heights, he founded and directed his own company, SPINXFiltration, where he developed a centrifugal oil-cleaning system for small diesel engines. His idea was to extend the life of diesel engines to save customers' money. Neil had ambitious plans to develop materials for the energy industry and for defence industries relating to nuclear submarines. His inspiration, in his own words, was: … to advance the understanding of novel semiconducting materials with functionality relevant to modern technologies, particularly those with defence and sustainable energy applications. Determined to make his dream a reality, Neil apply to Oxford university to do his doctorate and was accepted. Unfortunately, the expense of attending Oxford made it unattainable, but opportunities beckoned elsewhere. Neil was offered a generous scholarship to work with a world-renowned research team at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. This was a fantastic opportunity for Neil to pursue his dreams, and he relocated to the US on 1 August 2021. Neil integrated seamlessly into his new research team and forged friendships in his new home. On the evening of 29 October 2021, Neil and one of his classmates headed out to dinner, thinking it would be a fun night like any other, but it ended in tragedy. Crossing the road on their way home, Neil and his friend were struck down by a speeding sports car running a red light. Neil's friend ultimately survived, with Neil fighting for his life in an Atlanta hospital. His parents travelled to the other side of the world to be by his bedside, but Neil died on 7 November 2021. It's impossible to imagine the heartbreak and grief of Joanne and Keith; Neil's sister, Elise; and Neil's 85-year-old grandmother, Janice Flynn. The family's grief was compounded by the fact that the driver received a manifestly inadequate sentence for the innocent life his negligent driving claimed. The driver who took Neil's life was charged only with misdemeanours. He was released on bond with a fine of only$1,000 and 30 days community service. As a member of the Australian parliament, I can't interfere with the legal processes of another country—although today I've written to the United States Ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, asking her to take up this case with the Georgia state authorities and have it reviewed. For someone to take the life of such a promising young man and yet be charged not with manslaughter but with a misdemeanour is a travesty of justice. Neil's loved ones have not only lost a son, a grandson, a brother and a friend but Australia has been robbed of one of its most promising minds—a budding scientist with the potential to shape the course of nuclear research in Australia and abroad at a time in our history when we need our best and brightest minds focused on this task. I want to say to Neil's family: Neil's life mattered, and today in this House we've recorded some of his contributions and his achievements on the national record. I stand with Neil's family and friends in their pain, loss and grief. Today, as a parliament, we pause to remember the priceless gift that was Neil Anderson, whose life was filled with affection, fun and laughter. We remember his appetite for adventure, his brilliant mind and his resolve to serve our country in nuclear science. May Neil William Anderson's memory be a blessing to all those who knew him. Robertson Electorate: Ettalong Beach 84 16:54 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The Central Coast is blessed with spectacular beaches, waterways and national parks. Our community has a great affinity with our coastal environments and recreational spaces. However, there is more work for each level of government to do to ensure our coastal recreational spaces are places that are inclusive and safe for all members of our community. Recently I launched a campaign with a petition to upgrade the Ettalong Beach foreshore. As many in the community know, Ettalong Beach foreshore is a phenomenal destination for the community and visitors to our region. It has exceptional views of Broken Bay, Lion Island and the northern beaches of Sydney. It is also a well-loved destination for picnickers, exercise groups, cyclists, swimmers, beachgoers and watercraft enthusiasts, though this foreshore can and should be a more accessible, safe and welcoming space for our community. As I have doorknocked and phoned in the area, and through my own understanding of the location, I have realised that there are significant issues affecting the Ettalong Beach foreshore. Principally, the considerable erosion that is crippling the foreshore from The BOX on the Water to the ferry wharf on Ferry Road. This erosion is reducing the community's access to the water and threatening community infrastructure. It is also a serious safety issue, with exposed rocks and unstable areas. Another issue that is affecting the foreshore is the lack of consistent community infrastructure, including footpaths and landscaping with trees, shrubs, seating and shelters. I also note that the Esplanade, the road which runs parallel to the foreshore, is riddled with potholes and requires renewal. So I'm pleased that, because of Commonwealth funding that I was able to secure through the $40 million Central Coast local roads package, the Esplanade will receive a much-needed road renewal. Central Coast Council have confirmed that from the 2024-25 financial year the Esplanade from Kourung Street to Beach Street will receive a road renewal, with works to be completed by the 2027-28 financial year. I know that the community will welcome these critical roadworks. What our community campaign and petition seeks to achieve is multipronged. We want to raise awareness of this important matter and secure funding from all levels of government—that is, Central Coast Council, the New South Wales government and the Australian government. We want to use this funding to then devise a master plan—crucially, with community consultation and input. We want to strengthen the Ettalong foreshore and create an inclusive and accessible space that everyone can enjoy and that everyone can be proud of. There are outstanding examples of what Ettalong Beach foreshore could look like with an upgrade dotted right across this magnificent country. I am proud to announce in this chamber that, to date, our campaign petition has received an overwhelming level of support. We've recorded over 500 signatures in less than three months since starting our campaign, and I would like to thank the many small businesses, the clubs and the community organisations that have supported this campaign so far. I would also like to thank, in particular, the Ettalong Diggers and its chief executive officer, Col Murphy, for its support of our campaign. Mr Murphy penned a passionate letter to me highlighting the various issues affecting the foreshore and how important it is to ensure first impressions of the area are favourable. When I have been doorknocking in the Ettalong Beach area, many residents have told me that they are already aware of the petition because they have signed it at the Ettalong Diggers. So our campaign is resonating with our community. I would also like to thank the Peninsula Residents Association who I met with recently to discuss this campaign. The association had many questions about the petition and what was envisaged. I was very pleased that the meeting concluded with the association's support for addressing the issues affecting the Ettalong Beach foreshore. Lastly, I would like to encourage the community to keep sharing this petition. The greater the number of signatures that we have on this petition and on the record, the greater our chances are of securing funding for the master plan and for this project that will benefit all people, not just in the Ettalong area but right across the Central Coast and more broadly. So, team Central Coast, let's get this done and let's make the Central Coast a better place for our community. House adjourned at 16:59 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:30.

Thursday, 27 June 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:30.

STATEMENTS 86 STATEMENTS Advisers in the Federation Chamber 86 09:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I would like to make some comments about the proper conduct of advisers in the Federation Chamber. The roped-off gallery areas to my left and right in this chamber may be accessed by advisers to members and ministers. Advisers may enter through the doors adjacent to the galleries only, not through the doors reserved for members, and may not intrude onto the floor of the Federation Chamber at any time. Under no circumstances are advisers to seek the attention of a member or minister personally—for example, by calling out. The proper process is for advisers to pass any messages to members through the attendants or for members to approach their advisers. I have asked the staff of this chamber to assist in maintaining those standards, and they have my full support in doing so. Members are responsible for the behaviour of their respective advisers, and I ask that they ensure their advisers understand these rules. If advisers do not comply with the rules, I will withdraw their right to access the advisers' seating in the Federation Chamber. CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 86 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Antidiscrimination Laws 86 09:31 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane Equality Australia recently published a report, Dismissed, denied and demeaned. This report laid out just how rife discrimination against queer students and staff in religious schools can be. It's appalling that our current laws allow for staff to be fired for coming out and for students to be expelled for coming out. This report found that LGBTIQA+ students are more likely to attend an independent school that discriminates against them than one which supports them. Here are a few examples from this report of what's going on at the moment: Daniel did not apply to renew his teaching contract at a Christian school in Queensland after he was told in 2015 by the principal to stop being openly gay. Karen was fired from her role as a teacher in 2020 at a tertiary college in Sydney after she became engaged to her same-sex partner. Steph was fired from her role as an English teacher at a Christian school in Sydney in 2021 after she came out as a lesbian. The school argued that she was required to attend a church that believed in the immorality of homosexuality and 'prayerfully live a celibate life' to work there. And let's not forget what happened at Citipointe Christian College in Brisbane just two years ago. Parents were forced to sign a declaration that compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and paedophilia to keep their children enrolled at the school. Teachers were forced to agree that they could not express their sexuality except through heterosexual married relationships. In a country like Australia, our laws should protect all of us equally. A recent poll commissioned by Just.Equal found that more than half of Australians oppose laws allowing these schools to legally sack or refuse to hire teachers on the basis of sexuality and gender identity, with a further 65 per cent of people opposing exemptions allowing faith based social services such as hospitals and disability services the right to discriminate based on sexuality and gender identity. Earlier this year, the Australian Law Reform Commission released their report into discrimination in religious schools, with a clear road map to fixing this country's outdated antidiscrimination laws. People of faith should be free to practise their religion without fear of harm or prejudice, and people from all protected groups should have the right to feel secure in their employment without fear of being fired just for who they are. Let's not forget in this debate that queer religious people also exist. How are they meant to engage with their communities of faith when laws like this continue to exist? The Greens have been clear from day one that we want to work with the Labor government and the crossbench to deliver these important reforms as soon as possible. Passing these protections was a Labor election commitment, and suddenly pledging that the government will only do it with the coalition's support is incredibly frustrating when we are right here, willing to give you the numbers, and a clear majority of the public support the recommendations in the ALRC report. Higgins Electorate: Malvern Central School, Women in Sport 86 09:35 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins A visit to Malvern Central School on 11 June to meet the year 5s and 6s was a joy. The students quizzed me on my role as an MP and I visited their STEM lab. Everything was on the table, from my journey into politics—I was a science based activist—to what I'd like to achieve if I was PM, including more young people in parliament, of course. I also talked to them about leadership being about bringing people with divergent views together in a process called consensus building, which is not easy but is an essential skill for the job of running a country; why politics is becoming more risky because people can't seem to disagree respectfully; to what I did to wind down—hang out with my family and my dog, a rescue German Shepherd who we adore. I told them social media is a barrier to authentic connection, where everything is filtered, so stay off it for as long as possible was my take. If only we could take the natural curiosity of these children and put it in water. More questions in a respectful way from a place of genuine curiosity would help solve our world's problems. These children will be that bridge, supported by the outstanding teachers and a community of parents. Anna at St Michaels Parish School, Ashburton explained the problems girls and women face playing sport. Only 32 per cent of Australian women participate in sport. For me, playing sport is the best, but unfortunately many girls don't feel that way. The cost of playing sport is so expensive. It's not right to leave young girls out of sport because they can't afford the fees. Gender equality is important, and if girls see that boys are treated differently they are less likely to participate. Boys might get better equipment and the best grounds to play on, and it's much easier to watch men's sport. The Albanese Labor government agrees, which is why we stumped up $200 million for the Play Our Way initiative. This will help build better facilities like pavilions and lighting, and also provide equipment, uniforms and the hiring of coaches to increase girls participation in sport. Other initiatives include enabling Sport Integrity Australia to improve the safety of women in sport; creating pathways for female coaches by funding the Gen32 Coach Program, which is extending the course from two to three years; and continuing funding for soccer events and our national netball team, the Diamonds. We're also updating anti-siphoning broadcasting laws to protect women's sporting events like the magic Matildas' games. To young girls and women who like or love sports, a government that is 53 per cent women has your back. Hume Electorate: Penrose Village Hall, Pickles, Mr Bailey 87 09:37 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I recently had the privilege of attending the official opening of the new Penrose Village Hall. More than four years ago, the Morton bushfire swept through parts of the Southern Highlands, destroying 45 homes and many buildings. But out of tragedy can come great things. The community of Penrose is testament to this. With plenty of hard work, the new Penrose Hall was built in just 12 months. It's now fire resistant and can cater for 125 people. It's also used as an art space where local artists can display their works. This was evident at the exhibition held last month. At the official opening of Penrose Village Hall, I was joined by the Governor-General of Australia, His Excellency, the Honourable David Hurley and Her Excellency Mrs Linda Hurley, the New South Wales member for Goulburn, Wendy Tuckerman, and Penrose community members to mark the occasion. The project was made possible thanks to $1.7 million in funding through stage 2 of the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Package fund, which was co-funded by the former New South Wales coalition government. There were also other important contributions from the Goulburn Mulwaree Council and the Veolia Mulwaree Trust. I need to make special mention of the efforts of local resident Dr Jeff Freeman, who played a major role in getting the project up and running. Another resident in my electorate who deserves special mention is a very talented young constituent who wrote the music for this year's Vivid Australia, the nation's largest arts festival. Twenty-year-old Bailey Pickles wrote his first piece of music at the age of three. He developed the unique gift of playing by ear, which means he can listen to a song and play it back without reading sheet music, and he did this for me with a number of wonderful songs. His incredible talents were recognised early, and he was selected for the Sydney Conservatorium's rising stars program at the age of 10. After graduating from Macarthur Anglican School, Bailey is now a third-year student at the conservatorium. He's amassed a huge following across social media and has collaborated with many of Australia's most successful artists, including Delta Goodrem, Morgan Evans and Jessica Mauboy, but he still maintains that wonderful authenticity of a young man from Camden. I recently had the opportunity to meet him at his home in Camden, where he showed me how he composed the 10-minute soundtrack for Vivid that was heard by millions of people. As I said, he played me some fantastic music, all by ear. No doubt the sky is the limit for this talented young man, who's now working with some of the UK's biggest artists. I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more about Bailey Pickles in the years to come. Dunkley Electorate: Housing 87 09:40 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley In my first speech, I spoke to the need for a blend of more affordable and social housing in Dunkley. With 59.9 per cent of the Dunkley electorate being low or very low income, and higher than average rates of domestic and family violence and single-parent families on low incomes, Dunkley needs more affordable and social housing. Frankston City is experiencing major demographic change, increasing the demand for a greater diversity of housing supply, particularly social and affordable housing. As it is a designated metropolitan activity centre, this growth will only continue as more businesses invest in Frankston, increasing the need for workers to live nearby. To create and support a thriving community with new facilities, including the redeveloped Frankston Hospital, we need more affordable and social housing for workers and families now more than ever. I'm very pleased the Albanese government takes the issue of affordable housing seriously and is investing in housing on a very large scale. Some $32 billion is being spent by this government on improving housing stock in this country. This year's budget also includes an extra $6.2 billion to build more homes quickly across the nation. The recently announced Homes for Australia Plan will deliver significant new funding across the country to build more homes, with a national housing agreement due to begin on 1 July. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will deliver funding to build 30,000 homes, 4,000 of which will be reserved for women fleeing family violence and older women at risk of homelessness. The $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator will deliver thousands of new homes for women and families across the country. This will increase housing supply sooner for Australians on a social housing waitlists. The Help to Buy scheme will help realise the aspiration of new home ownership for many by giving people a leg-up, assisting some 40,000 households to purchase affordable housing. After meeting with representatives from the Committee for Frankston and Mornington Peninsula, Josh Sinclair, Frankston City Council and Mornington Peninsula Shire, I am aware of the commitment by these organisations to meet the needs and gaps— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09:42 to 10:32 Moore Electorate: Neil Hawkins Park 88 10:32 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I refer to the government's recently announced Thriving Suburbs Program and Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program and nominate a very worthy project in my electorate: Neil Hawkins Park, a regional recreation park within the city of Joondalup. It is a popular recreational area for local residents living in Joondalup's CBD, as well as being a gathering point for the wider northern suburbs community, as it forms part of the greater Yellagonga Regional Park. Located adjacent to Lake Joondalup, it is widely used by cyclists, runners and families for recreation and picnics. Neil Hawkins Park was first developed approximately 30 years ago, and the park infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life. The City of Joondalup is currently investigating options to renew and redevelop the park to cater for future community needs. There are plans for a new destination play space, featuring all-abilities play equipment and shade sails. This will be complemented by other recreational amenities, including accessible barbecues, picnic shelters, bench seating and drinking fountains—together with a universal-access footpath network with educational and wayfinding signage, lighting and CCTV; additional tree planting; landscaping; and artwork. In addition, the city is investigating the feasibility of building a cafe or restaurant within the site to further enhance the activation of this regional recreation park. The estimated total cost of the project is $14 million. It is anticipated that the development of a business case will commence in August, followed by design, community consultation and procurement, with construction scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026-27. The city seeks federal funding support under the Thriving Suburbs Program and the Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program, which are designed to fund planning and investment in our cities and suburbs to ensure more people have access to important community infrastructure. This project has significant merit. In February, the Prime Minister declared that Moore is now a key seat following the change in political dynamics. Moore matters even more now. Accordingly, we extend an invitation to the minister for infrastructure to visit Neil Hawkins Park and favourably consider federal support for the redevelopment proposal by the City of Joondalup. Assyrian People, Ziton, Ms Ayla 88 10:35 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Earlier this week, I received in Canberra a delegation from the Assyrian National Council, well known to the member for Werriwa and others in this place. They brought with them an international guest, Mr Ron Susek, author of the book The Assyrian Prophecy. It was a good opportunity for them to talk about the latest issues of the Assyrian National Council with two ministers, Minister Andrew Giles and Assistant Minister Tim Watts. I was very pleased to arrange that meeting for them to see Minister Giles and Assistant Minister Watts. They raised matters of common occurrence in this House—matters that have been raised by me, the member for Werriwa and others over many years—but they particularly wanted to ensure that any Australian aid flowing to Iraq flows to the Assyrian people. We had a good conversation about those issues, and it was an opportunity for Minister Watts to chase those up. And there was, of course, an excellent and important conversation with Minister Giles, who's no stranger to the Assyrian community. He's met with them several times about settlement and immigration matters. There was one particular case that was raised with me, and this is one of thousands of cases that the Assyrian people have had to deal with. But, given just how recent this one is, I will bring it to the attention of the House. On 12 March this year, a 20-year-old university student, Ayla Ziton, was kidnapped by militants when she was on the way to visit a friend in her neighbourhood. She's a university student. She has not been able to go to university for some time, given the harassment by groups in Iraq. This woman has now been kidnapped and not seen. This young woman, 20 years old, has not been seen since 12 March. Her family has faced repeated attacks from militants in the past, including physical confrontation and violent incidents. In response to these threats, they've had to sell their property and leave their home, and the kidnapping of their daughter is just the latest thing this family has had to go through. I have a 19-year-old daughter. I can only just begin to imagine what this family is going through. It is appropriate that here in the other side of the world—under no illusions that the militants who have kidnapped her are watching—her case should be brought to the attention of democracies around the world, and we should be putting pressure on. I've raised it with the assistant minister and I will write to him formally, asking for the Australian government to make representations to ensure that everything possible can be done, and I know he will do that. This is just the latest example in thousands of years of what the Assyrian people have had to go through and continue to go through, as we discussed with Mr Susek. It is appropriate to bring this issue to the House's attention. The Assyrian people need to know that, when they are going through things like this—the kidnapping of a 20-year-old girl—they have friends, supporters and family right around the world, and that includes in the Parliament of Australia. Casey Electorate: Arts 89 10:38 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Casey is home to a thriving creative arts community and culture. As the son of an artist and a musician, I enjoy going to many community events where we celebrate the arts. Unfortunately, that skill set was not passed down to me, but it is a core part of who we are in Casey. It's also a large part of the healing and resilience of our community, particularly in the Dandenong Ranges, after the June storms of 2021. I recently had opportunity to visit the YAVA Gallery & Arts Hub in Healesville, a volunteer organisation that does much in our community to celebrate the arts. I was there for the exhibition and book launch of The Tree of Ecstasy and Unbearable Sadness by Matt Ottley. It was an inspiring display of his journey through mental health challenges, and it was wonderful to speak to Matt. They've got exhibitions by painters, like Jo Caroll, Denise Smith and Clair Bremner. It's an open studio for anyone in the community to come and visit. I also recently visited Dave Ferrier and the team at Treasuring Our Trees, another creative community organisation that came out of the tragedy that was the June 2021 storms. Dave is repurposing trees in many creative ways to help heal from that trauma. I want to pay tribute to Gareth Hart, the outgoing Burrinja CEO, someone that I got to know over the last three years as the candidate and as the member for Casey. Gareth steered Burrinja through many challenges—through COVID and through the disasters of the June storms. He has played a key role in helping heal our community. I wish him well on his next journey. He's left a legacy in Casey. Thank you, Gareth. Recently, I was at the Yarra Ranges Regional Museum, where we celebrated the opening of Stories of Giants. Emma Jennings, from Olinda, created this artistic opportunity to heal our community and pay tribute to people like Kalorama CFA captain Bill Robinson and the Emerald SES captain, Ben Owens, who gave so much and sacrificed so much in June 2021 to keep us safe. It was an emotional day, but it was an important day, as we continue to heal as a community. We know that the trauma that many experienced on that night, on that day and in the weeks subsequent will never leave us, but the artistic community of the Dandenong Ranges, of the Yarra Valley and all across Casey has played a key role in helping us continue to move forward. I want to pay tribute to them. I recently had the opportunity to be at the book launch of Musings from a Poet called Gav, by my good friend Gav Smith from Soupees. He created Soupees to help those in need. His poems are inspirational. They cover a range of topics. It was great to buy a book, support Gav, support Soupees and congratulate him on the work he does for our community. 10:41 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to acknowledge the work being undertaken by both the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for the Environment and Water in the Albanese Labor government. Both of these ministers are working hard on issues that I know people in my electorate care critically about, and those, of course, are the issues of our planet and the impacts of climate change. I want to pay tribute, firstly, to the minister for the environment for the Nature Positive Plan that she is implementing for our country. Stage 1 of that is, of course, the Nature Repair Market scheme. Stage 2 is legislation in front of the parliament at the moment around the national EPA—that is, Environment Protection Australia—and Environment Information Australia, so that we can continue our work to ensure that we have, as a country, a positive plan for nature in this country. Of course, part of the job of the minister for the environment is around giving approval for projects, and, as the minister, the member for Sydney, has said repeatedly in question time, the Labor Party are doing approvals for renewable energy that are outstripping approvals for coal seam gas seven to one. Under the former government, approvals for renewables versus coal and gas were even, across 10 years. We have ramped up the approvals for renewables thanks to the hard work of these two ministers—one working, obviously, with the energy sector, in the transition, and the other working tirelessly in the approvals. Part of that work has also been getting those approvals done more quickly and more efficiently after a lag time that had stretched out under the previous government. They are both part of a team committed to responsible environmental management and action on climate change, which means creating a new energy system for our nation. That includes renewables. That includes not just the wind and not just solar but looking into green energy wherever we can. What are we getting from those opposite? A commitment to a nuclear plan that is going to cost too much and take too long. What will that leave us with? That'll leave us with another 10-year vacuum, while people twiddle their thumbs and allow the climate change crisis to deepen and worsen. This is a government committed to action now, not in 10 years. This is a government that doesn't want to waste another decade, like happened last time those opposite took power in this country. I know that in my community these are critical matters. These are matters that young people and families in my community care critically about, and I know they join me in congratulating the two ministers responsible for the plan. Bonner Electorate: Bonner Volunteer Awards 90 10:45 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner It takes a special kind of person to sacrifice their own time and energy to help another. While they may not necessarily have the resources to give, it is those who are of exceptional character who persevere and get the job done, even when there is no reward and oftentimes no recognition. It's this unique sense of humility, duty and compassion for others that is rare and so worthy of celebration. This is why I host the annual Bonner Volunteer Awards, which recognises some of the very best in our community. We had over 60 nominations this year—our highest to date—and it was my very difficult task to narrow down these to just five awardees. Congratulations to all those who were nominated. The quality of each of your stories is a testament to the community spirit and the dedication of so many. Bonner locals are the best. In the young volunteer category, Xavier Curry of Mansfield State High School, took the win. Xavier sacrifices much of his time to working with organisations such as Emmanuel City Mission and the Brisbane City Council's Homeless Connect. Thank you for your service, Xavier. The Senior Volunteer of the Year Award was presented to Gavin Gray for his work with OzFish. Gavin has helped construct and deploy 10,000 robust oyster banks, which now filter 1.2 million litres of water each hour, creating homes for 21 million new marine animals and addressing the need for more habitats and biodiversity in our bay. The Adult Volunteer of the Year Award was given to Merryl Bennett, the registrar of the Wynnum-Manly Junior Rugby League Club. Merryl is committed to ensuring that all players are properly documented so they can participate safely. Last year, the club even offered Merryl a paid position, but she declined, saying, 'Use the money for the kids.' Well done, Merryl. Sailability Bayside took the win for the Volunteer Group of the Year Award for their work providing wheelchair bound people with the opportunity to set sail in two-person dinghies. Thanks to the dedication of the Sailability Bayside volunteers, many more people will have the ability to enjoy our beautiful Bayside. Finally, I presented the George Kambouris Memorial Award. This special award recognises volunteers who have shown outstanding resilience, excellence and compassion in providing support for others in Bonner. George Kambouris was a Carindale local who, despite being born with spina bifida, dedicated his life to mentoring young individuals and enabling them to participate in sports. George made an immeasurable contribution to our local community and has left a longlasting legacy. I was proud to present the George Kambouris Memorial Award to Tom Price, Wilson Griffin and Jacob Marchant on behalf of You Are Not Alone. Congratulations to all those who were nominated and all those who were recognised. Spence Electorate: Kaurna Plains School 90 10:48 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence The communities of the northern suburbs of Adelaide are home to an incredibly strong collective of people. Over the decades, families in our patch have not always had an upper hand, sometimes in an economic sense and sometimes in difficult social circumstances. It is this disadvantage that drives me to do what I do to fight for the people who are doing it tough to ensure their needs are met and their aspirations can be realised. Such hardship as the north has endured creates extraordinary resolve. We are a people, regardless of the challenge at hand, with a stiff upper lip, ready to push through whatever obstacles present themselves. I can think of no better example of this than my visit to the Kaurna Plains School in Elizabeth last month. I participated in the Indigenous school's Little Long Walk, which saw its staff, students and families walk around the school oval to celebrate Aboriginal culture and raise awareness of the issues that First Nations people face. On the day it absolutely poured with rain and there was little cover for anyone, but Kaurna Plains didn't care. They would have walked in a hurricane. I was soaked by the end of it, but it made clear to me that Kaurna Plains, from students to staff, is absolutely determined to make a positive impact not just on themselves but on the community around them. It's a school that, despite the disadvantages it faces, will push through to support its students in the most important stages of their lives. Peyton Turner, a year 10 student, who I met on the day, embodies this. Her efforts in South Australia's Teen Parliament to raise awareness of the need to teach Indigenous languages are extraordinary. She rightly brought positive attention to the significant contribution of language towards Aboriginal culture, captivating both the media and the state government. Peyton should be incredibly proud of her actions, and I know that I could not be more proud of a student from our patch in the north, raising her voice to benefit her community and beyond. I am even more proud of being able, as part of this Labor government, to deliver the Schools Upgrade Fund to five schools in my electorate, including Kaurna Plains. This means that students in my community, like Peyton, will be more able to receive quality education, to effect positive change for themselves and others. It also means that other schools—including the primary schools of Elizabeth East, Elizabeth South and Elizabeth Park, as well as Swallowcliffe School—will be more capable of delivering better outcomes for young Australians and their families. It also means that we, in the north, as tough as we are, will be closer to lifting the scourge of disadvantage off our backs, through quality education, to strengthen our community now and for years to come. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 91 BILLS Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024 91

Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024

Second Reading 91 10:51 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 The question is that this bill be now read a second time, and I call the member for Warringah, in continuation. 10:51 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I welcome the opportunity to make some further comments in relation to the Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024. We know that, for so many artists in Australia, it is incredibly difficult to make a living. We know that it would have got harder throughout the recent years, with COVID, but, generally, we know that they are well below the national average when it comes to income. It is incredibly difficult, despite them contributing so much to our national identity and our culture, to our children and their understanding of our country, our traditions and our multiculturalism—all these aspects are incredibly important—and, in particular, to us understanding and having better awareness of First Nations cultural traditions and art. We know, for example, that artists in Australia are generally unable to work full-time in creative work because the income from this work is simply not sufficient. Only one in 10 artists can work full-time in the arts. Two out of five working artists need to meet their basic living costs by additional work. In 2022, the Productivity Commission found that the sale of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art, including souvenirs, was worth $250 million annually, supporting thousands of jobs in remote communities and helping to draw more tourists to Australia and create more awareness of those First Australians. So it's incredibly important to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and their art in that way. Unfortunately, though, according to Creative Australia, there is no single source of representative data on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and their working conditions. That's simply not good enough, and it's symptomatic of the way in which we don't take First Nations artists as seriously as we should—or haven't, to date. I certainly hope that, with this legislation, that is going to change. The bill before us will help to start to turn that around and give more support to and certainty for First Nations artists. The bill—and I will support it—will create two new bodies within Creative Australia: First Nations Arts and also Writing Australia. First Nations Arts will have autonomy over the allocation of its funds for investment in First Nations arts. It will be guided by First Nations cultural protocols and principles, to support and invest in a diverse range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice and provide financial assistance, whether by way of loan, grant, investment, award or otherwise, as it sees fit, and whether on commercial terms or otherwise. Separately, Writing Australia will support and promote the Australian literature sector, including the development of markets and audiences. We know the importance of stories, and, too often, when we've spoken of the arts, the literature sector has been overlooked and writers have been left to really fend for themselves. So this amendment, to create Writing Australia, is welcome. We know we have a lot of work to do to better support the arts in Australia, particularly First Nations artists. We're already starting to see some good outcomes from investment in Australia's creative sector. Of course, we need to remember that, within the philanthropic sector, philanthropy has always been a huge contributor to the arts. I very much thank all those that are in a position to, through philanthropy, assist in that development and that continuation. I know there are many within my community in Warringah that invest in the future of that cultural aspect and storytelling. Creative Australia is already making its mark in supporting First Nations artists. We know 23 artists, including Emma Donovan, Dan Sultan, Jungaji, Buddy Knox, Lucas Proudfoot and Selve, are already set to receive contemporary music touring grants. It has been encouraging to see the government's focus on genuine community input through the First Nations First national consultations. It's the sort of genuine engagement with First Nations people around Australia that my community in Warringah want to see. In Warringah, my constituents showed one of the strongest levels of support for the Voice referendum in the country, for the recognition of First Nations people—First Australians—in our Constitution. I strongly believe in Indigenous peoples' self-determination and the opportunity to have much stronger representation. It's positive that there appears to be a genuine effort by the government in its commitment to listen, to take on feedback and to provide First Nations peoples with an opportunity to be active participants in decision-making within First Nations art. Increased participation in the arts will also provide employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists, which will allow strong economic participation and development of First Nations artists in their communities. I should note, though—I am concerned about this—that the multicultural aspect of Australia cannot be overlooked. When I think of Writing Australia, for example, it needs to make sure that, when look at applications and at supporting artists and writers, it has in its mind's eye an awareness of our multicultural nature in Australia. There are many stories to tell, many backgrounds and many cultures, and we must make sure that we actually reflect that through that funding of so many bodies and that we reflect the true nature of our communities, which are part of an incredibly successful multicultural nation. I hope that through all these bodies there is rightly a focus on that First Nations arts piece. We must make sure that all other funding and bodies keep an eye on and make sure that they have that principle of multiculturalism as well and that that be recognised. To finish off, this bill represents essential steps towards revitalising an industry consistently undermined by budget cuts in previous years. Too often people think the arts are something that's a 'nice to have' not a 'must have'. But, in fact, when we look back and think of what it is to be Australian, what our national identity is and what our culture is, it is so often contributed to by the arts. Many in Warringah and around Australia are, I know, incredibly proud of Australian artists and what they do, how they represent Australia on the international scene and how they tell our stories through all the different mediums. I commend this bill to the House. 10:58 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I recently arrived in Canberra early enough on a Sunday to attend the National Gallery of Australia. It does have a very magnificent collection. I especially went to see the Century of Quilts collection, which is magnificent, showing not only European quilts but Indigenous quilting and fabric art. I also visited the major exhibition by the Indigenous artist Vincent Namatjira. I was interested to learn through Senate estimates that I am not the only one to be drawn to this exhibition. Apparently, visits to the National Gallery have surged by 24 per cent since public attention was drawn to one of the portraits by Mr Namatjira. The other item I was interested in looking at again was Jackson Pollock's magnum opus, Blue Poles. This piece of art needs no introduction in this place. It stands the test of time and will continue to attract visitors for centuries to come. It was of course purchased by a former member for Werriwa. It was Gough Whitlam's approval in 1973 for the extraordinary sum of $1.3 million—extraordinarily cheap, as it turns out, because, while it is difficult to value pieces of art, it's now estimated to be worth around $500 million. Who said Gough didn't have a good eye for art or investment? Labor has always had the back of the arts community in Australia. From the halcyon days of Gough and Don Dunstan to now, Labor and the arts community have always gone hand in hand. In July last year, I had the pleasure of hosting a roundtable discussion with Australia's Special Envoy for the Arts, the member for Macquarie, who, thankfully, is joining us in the chamber today. The venue was the wonderful Casula Powerhouse, and there were many representatives present from our local Werriwa arts community. The roundtable's objective was to directly feed into the matter that is before the House today—that is, to implement Labor's national cultural policy, Revive. So I'm delighted to be here today, speaking to this important piece on national policy, knowing that what comes before us has been widely canvassed and discussed and that my own arts community in Werriwa had the opportunity for input. I really thank the special envoy for that. This bill establishes two bodies within Creative Australia: First Nations Arts and Writing Australia. The Albanese government recognises and respects the vital place First Nations stories have at the centre of Australia's art and culture. The bill will establish a First Nations board to oversee the work of First Nations Arts. The board will consist of 10 members, and all will be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. Uniquely, the board will have autonomy over the allocation of funds for investment in First Nations art. In addition, the First Nations Board will promote best practice in First Nations cultural protocols in the arts, provide financial assistance to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice, advise the Australia Council board on the responsibility of First Nations arts and report performance to the Australia Council board. In addition to First Nations Art and the First Nations Board, this bill also creates Writing Australia. Writing Australia will commence on 1 July 2025 and will be a new body to support and promote the Australian literature sector. Like First Nations Arts, Writing Australia will be supported by the Writing Australia Council and will consist of a chair and eight other members. Writing Australia will have a wide brief. It will be there to support authors, illustrators and publishers to create new works, but it also will have the role of increasing national and international markets, developing national industry initiatives and investing in a network of key organisations. Writing Australia has been specifically designed to reach into the commercial sectors where traditional grant funding models have limited success. It will become a policy engine for the sector. In the year since Revive was launched, this government has achieved so much in the policy area of the arts. We reversed the previous government's funding cuts, established Creative Australia, established Creative Workplaces and established Music Australia, Sharing the National Collection and so much more. After the difficult years of the pandemic, coupled with the funding cuts of the previous government, Revive is indeed appropriately titled, because Labor and the Albanese government are reviving the arts sector. Finally we have a government that listens to this sector, tries to understand the challenges and then acts to address those challenges. This bill further implements the Revive policy document and, in doing so, offers the arts community—in particular our First Nations people—and writing communities a place at the table, front and centre, where they belong. I referred earlier to the halcyon days of the 1970s, and they were, but here is a thought: perhaps through the implementation of Revive the best days of our arts community lie just around the corner. That is a suggestion for which I can hear the spirit of Gough saying, 'Here, here!' I commend the bill to the House. 11:04 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I thank the member for Werriwa for her kind words. It was fantastic to visit her electorate, as it was to visit your electorate, Deputy Speaker McKenzie, and engage with incredible artists and other people who care about this sector. Soon after the Albanese government came to office, the Minister for the Arts began the consultation with the arts community that would lead to the development of Australia's new national cultural policy. It was my privilege to be part of those consultations as the Special Envoy for the Arts to talk with artists and arts workers across the country about the opportunities that inspire them and the issues that challenge them. Today it's my great pleasure to speak in support of the third piece of the series of legislation that responds to the needs they identified and implements the reforms that we promised. The Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024 will create two new bodies within Creative Australia that will allow it to better support First Nations creativity and provide stronger strategic leadership to the literature sector. These are significant steps. I listened to the shadow minister, the member for Bradfield, earlier in this debate characterise these changes as meaningless bureaucratic rearrangements that will expand the arts bureaucracy and do nothing to improve the conditions of Australian artists. This rhetoric is unfortunately typical of some of those opposite. It betrays a contempt for artists' expertise. The previous government much preferred captain's picks to arms-length arts funding, so naturally they're uncomfortable with reform that empowers the arts community. This is about putting artists and arts workers at the centre of decision-making, where they should be. The Liberals made the same cynical baseless objections to Music Australia, which has been operating since August. Let's take a look at its record since then. In less than 12 months, Music Australia has launched a quarterly export development fund for artists with three categories of international support. The first recipients will be announced this week. They have supported an additional 60-plus projects worth around $1.8 million through arts projects grants. They have supported an additional 32 international engagement projects worth around three-quarters of a million dollars. They have committed half a million dollars towards the Contemporary Music Touring Program. They have announced four service delivery partners: the Push, the Association of Artist Managers, the Australian Independent Record Labels Association and the Live Music Office live and local program. They have introduced the Music Australia international conference contribution fund, which to date has supported 38 artist managers and 20 labels to attend international events. They have produced valuable research on the music industry, including Soundcheck: insights into Australia's music festival sector. They have begun economic analysis of the Australian music industry that will report on the music industry's contribution to the Australian economy, the direct contribution of the music industry to employment and the value of Australian music exports. They have convened sector discussion sessions on a whole range of key topics. They have done all this with just four staff, so let's have no more of this nonsense about jobs for bureaucrats, and let's focus on what this legislation before us will do in the same way our previous legislation is already supporting the music sector. I want to talk first about First Nations Arts. We believe it's essential that First Nations people themselves determine the funding priorities and design the programs that support their creative expression. Throughout its history, Creative Australia has always ensured First Nations representation on the assessment panels that allocate funding for First Nations arts projects. While there has always been a space for Indigenous self-determination within Creative Australia, this legislation will enshrine cultural authority to an even greater extent. The legislation will create a new autonomous body within Creative Australia named First Nations Arts. It will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will decide the agenda, design programs and determine funding priorities. This new body will significantly increase the Australian government's investment in First Nations culture. It has been allocated $35.5 million over four years to support the creation of new works, including major works of scale. This support will allow new stories to be told and a new generation of creatives to find their voice. In our consultations, we heard that too many demands are made of too few artists and arts workers. Unfortunately, this has led to talented people burning out and leaving the sector altogether. We simply cannot afford to lose that talent. More effort must be directed to nurturing the careers of First Nations people in the arts. More resources must be devoted to providing sustainable career pathways. More consideration must be given to the specific needs of First Nations people in the cultural sector. First Nations arts will help build the capacity of creative individuals and organisations across the arts and culture sector and develop the skills of the cultural workforce. The new body will develop a creative workforce development strategy, which will help address these needs. The arts can be a powerful force for reconciliation. It opens up a space in which we can build deeper understandings of culture and more empathetic connections with each other. The arts inspires us to imagine an Australia more at peace with itself, but it is essential that this engagement happen in a respectful and culturally appropriate way. In our consultations, we heard that far too often arts projects are undertaken in ways that breach cultural protocols, appropriate Indigenous culture and do not provide the kind of cultural safety that First Nations people should be able to expect. To address this issue, the new body will develop and promote best practice cultural protocols and provide cultural safety training across arts and cultural organisations. I want to acknowledge the many First Nations artists, arts workers and organisations who contributed to the formulation of the National Cultural Policy and who've engaged so constructively in shaping this new body. While this new board will be dedicated to supporting First Nations cultural expression, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture will also continue to be funded through existing programs within Creative Australia in all of the art forms it supports. The second board being established through this bill is Writing Australia, a direct response to the patient, reasoned and persistent calls from the literature sector. For a decade, the sector has voiced its concern about a lack of policy leadership from government and about chronic underinvestment. These concerns came through clearly in our consultations. Writing Australia will provide the additional investment and a strategic leadership that the sector has been asking for. This support is greatly needed. Compared to other art forms, literature has been structurally underfunded for many years. Writing Australia will deliver the funding that will allow authors, illustrators and publishers to create new works. It will promote Australian literature and expand markets for it at home and overseas. It will invest in organisations that support the sector, and it will deliver national industry initiatives to expand the industry. It will provide a common table for writers, publishers and other stakeholders to meet around to discuss the sector's common challenges and opportunities. Writing Australia will become a policy engine for the sector, building partnerships and expertise that will support both writers and audiences. Australia has so much to gain from a thriving literature culture. Research has established clear wellbeing benefits from reading. Reading slows the heart rate. Twenty per cent of regular readers say that it reduces their stress, and 43 per cent say it improves their sleep. Regular reading deepens our empathy with others and enriches our understanding of the world around us. Nineteen per cent of readers say that reading reduces loneliness. By investing in writing and reading, we're investing in the vitality of our culture and the wellbeing of the Australian people, so the $19.3 million over four years to Writing Australia by the Albanese government is a really good investment. Deputy Speaker, you may recall that, while he was arts minister, George Brandis spent $20,000 having a personal library and bespoke bookshelves installed in his office. Personally, what trouble me more than George Brandis's bookshelves are the countless shelves of great Australian books that were never written because of the cuts he made to arts funding in this country. Without any warning and without any justification, he raided $105 million from the Australia Council budget and directed that money to a slush fund to be spent according to his own preferences. In doing this, he broke the decades-long consensus that arts funding decisions must be made free from political interference. Worse than that, he attacked the livelihoods of some of the most talented and insightful creative Australians of our time. His cuts hit individual artists and small to medium organisations the hardest. While Brandis quarantined the largest performing arts organisations from his cuts, no such protection was given to literature. More than any other art form, the literature sector is made up of individual practitioners, but individuals were forbidden from applying for support from his fund. These decisions created profound and unnecessary hardship in the literature community, but something that struck me throughout that period was the solidarity and resilience that the literature community demonstrated. This helped the sector through that storm. I am continually impressed by how those within Australia's literature sector support each other, and I want to acknowledge the advocacy of the many individuals and organisations whose insights have informed the national cultural policy. They planted the seed of an idea that will soon emerge as Writing Australia. To organisations like the Australian Society of Authors, Books Create Australia, the Australian Publishers Association and the Australian Library and Information Association, thank you for everything that you have done to allow us to better understand the literature sector's needs and to bring us to this moment. These reforms build on the legacy of previous Labor governments. We on this side of the parliament understand that it is not the place of government to dictate taste. It's the responsibility of government to create the conditions that will allow Australian creativity to flourish. Freedom of creative expression is a basic principle of democracy. It's a principle that the Labor Party has always fought for and always will fight for. It was the Whitlam government that created the literature board of the Australia Council for the Arts in 1973. The board was created to replace the Commonwealth Literary Fund, whose funds were allocated by political leaders, not by subject matter experts. Released of political interference, the board enabled the creation of some of Australia's most powerful and incisive literary works of the 20th century, and it provided more financial support to Australian writers than had ever been offered before. In its first two years, the literature board of the Australia Council for the Arts provided more literary fellowships than its predecessor had in the previous three decades. Most writers don't seek fame or fortune. Most of the writers I talk to tell me that all they want is the time, space and freedom to create. Helen Garner once said: Every page of writing is the result of a thousand tiny decisions and desperate acts of will. It's true to say that writing is intensive, deeply personal and very often a solitary endeavour, but I hope that the writers of Australia feel that they are not entirely on their own and that they have a government firmly by their side and an audience that appreciates the contribution that they make to the vitality of our society. I hope that Australian writers can see, in the reforms that we're enacting and in the investments we're making, a vote of confidence in the work that they do. I say this with a sense of humility, because ultimately their work will outlast us all. Last week I visited the State Library of New South Wales, and as I entered the foyer I saw these words inscribed into the stone above me: In books lies the soul of the whole Past Time; the articulate audible voice of the Past, when the body and material substance of it has altogether vanished like a dream. These words reminded me that future generations will turn to the literature of our time to better understand who we were, what we valued and what moved us. Literature is a channel of communication between generations. For that reason, I'm proud to be part of a government that judges these investments worthy of being made and these reforms worthy of being enacted. In our natural cultural policy we propose the most ambitious reform to Creative Australia in its five-decade history. This legislation will complete the transformation of the organisation that the policy prescribed. The legislation will ensure that our new investments will be made according to the literature community's own priorities and that decisions will be based on their expertise. The legislation will enshrine the principle of First Nations self-determination. I commend the bill to the House. 11:19 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra It's an honour to follow the member for Macquarie in speaking on the Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024. She's our Special Envoy for the Arts and she has such a passionate commitment to the arts, and that started long before she's had that particular role. I particularly want to acknowledge all the work that she's done to engage people around Australia in the important work of our national institutions here in Canberra and to engage parliamentarians from this building and get them out, while they're here, to see the institutions. I want to thank the member for Macquarie for that. This bill is the culmination of months of hard work by the Minister for the Arts and his department, and I thank them for that work. I want to start by talking about the incredible arts community here in my electorate of Canberra. Art in Canberra is thriving—from our national collecting institutions, who have had their funding restored, to the incredible plays and shows across the bridge at the soon-to-be-upgraded theatre centre, or our stunning natural landscape, which has been the subject of many a photographer's lens. Canberrans love art in all its forms, and we've all been following on social media the journey of Lindy Lee's Ouroboros, the 13-tonne sculpture that has been making its way on the back of a truck from Brisbane to the National Gallery of Australia, to mark its 40th birthday this year. We're all really looking forward to seeing that in person. That's why bills such as this are so important. This bill establishes two new bodies within Creative Australia—First Nations Arts and Writing Australia—delivering on two key commitments announced in the National Cultural Policy. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting the arts, and our art community know just how genuinely passionate and interested in the arts our minister is. For Canberrans and the nation, it is so heartening to have a minister who actually enjoys going to the National Gallery and the Portrait Gallery and having a conversation about art in all its forms with our community. When we came to government, Labor restored funding to our important collecting institutions. I want to pay tribute to the minister again for making that happen. Just a few weeks ago, before the budget, I was really excited to join my ACT colleague the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, at Albert Hall to announce that the Albanese government was funding the Canberra Symphony Orchestra to the tune of $4.1 million over four years. As a trained classical cellist and a former member of Canberra Youth Orchestra, Senator Gallagher was particularly proud of this announcement. It was another example of Labor investing in Canberra and investing in the arts, because that's what our government does. In the years since we launched Revive, this government has established Creative Australia to modernise arts funding; reversed the significant coalition cuts to the sector that occurred under former minister Brandis; established Creative Workplaces to improve workplace standards and safety; established Music Australia to support the contemporary music industry; established Sharing the National Collection so that art from our institutions here in Canberra 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. This is all genuine reform to our arts sector to ensure that it thrives. This bill establishes First Nations Arts as a new body. The government recognises and respects the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture. That's why First Nations art has been put as the first pillar of the cultural policy. 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 which will 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 art. The government believes that First Nations Arts should be First Nations led. The board will also promote best practice in First Nations cultural protocols in the arts; provide financial assistance to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice; advise the Australia Council board on the responsibilities of First Nations Arts; and report its performance to the Australia Council board. Since the introduction of Revive, the government has been delivering for First Nations artists. This includes providing $5 million to upgrade training facilities at the NAISDA Dance College Kariong campus; launching Australia's Action Plan for the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, providing a framework to guide Australia's participation in the decade; 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; continuing 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; and 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. This bill also establishes Writing Australia. Writing Australia will be a new body to support and promote the Australian literature sector. 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. New technology is disrupting the landscape for writers, and there is a need for government policy to be modernised for these artists. Writing Australia has been deliberately 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. This bill demonstrates the 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. We know that, under the previous government, federal support for many artists in the country was lacking for many years. Our arts sector has, for too long, been dismissed and not received the respect it deserves. We saw this particularly during the COVID pandemic, when artists missed out on much of the support that was offered, even though the arts were such a critical part of our community getting through that really challenging time. Who could have got through the lockdowns without some of the great books to read or television series to watch or music to listen to? This was a time that made us realise just how important the arts are, in so many ways—to tell our stories, to inspire us. Through that, we realise how incredibly important artists are and that they do need the backing of federal government to ensure that they can continue to do what they do and to thrive in what they are doing—to inspire Australians and to tell our story so the rest of the world can appreciate all that we have to offer. They're incredibly important to Australia and the Australian way of life. From Bluey to Blue Poles, from The Manfrom Snowy River to Budjerah, who we were lucky enough to see perform in the Great Hall here last night, from the much-loved Belconnen Owl to the Ouroboros, about to take its place at the NGA, art tells our stories and enriches our culture. Creative Australians who dedicate their lives to enriching our own lives with their art deserve the utmost respect and support from the government. The Revive cultural policy is key to that, and these ongoing reforms will change the way that government engages with artists and the arts forever. This bill is an important step along that journey, and I commend the bill to the House. 11:28 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The arts are important to me, and I think they're important to all of us here. They're important to my community, in my electorate of Wills. Firstly, this is because there are so many talented local artists in my community. In fact, the suburb of Brunswick, in my electorate, has one of the highest concentrations of artists in all of Australia. But I think that the arts are more than just economic or a concentration of workers who work in the arts. A thriving arts sector is important because the arts are really the heart and soul of any society. They're the central core of any society. They play a fundamental role in our community. The creativity that comes through the arts and the artists has the power to light up our cities, light up our suburbs. The arts can really take us out of our own time and space, in some respects, so that we can reflect on other worlds, other perspectives, other human experiences and connections that are fundamental to being human. That's why the arts are so important. Art reaches the heart and the soul, but I think it also can reach the mind. Look at the arts in Australia and the telling of Australian stories, for example. I worked at SBS before politics, and it was so important when we had NITV join SBS to be able to tell Indigenous stories so that Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians could see those stories being told on the screen. When we tell Australian stories we can see ourselves reflected back towards us, and those unique Australian stories are so special to us. All of these benefits I've just outlined can't really be measured in traditional economic terms because there are no known metrics that can measure these intangibles—and they are intangibles and they're immeasurable in many respects. But that doesn't mean they're not important. In fact, it actually means the sense that we have and we know that the benefits—whether they be social, economic, cultural—are invaluable to us as a society. That's why the arts matter. You can't measure it in economic terms, but we actually know deep down that the impact it has on our lives and our society is invaluable. A society without the arts would not be a society; it would be something else that is alien to us. Throughout human history it has been part of who we are as human beings. In my local electorate, I recently met with the co-CEO of Outer Urban Projects, Kate Gillick, and the general manager is David Ralph. Outer Urban Projects is an impressive arts company in the Australian community. They do arts and cultural development in the performing arts sector. They work on a platform called Unheard Voices, which tells the stories and shows the arts of communities in the north of Melbourne. As part of their work they engage culturally diverse young people from low socio-economic backgrounds within the performing arts. They also offer free workshops to people who are newly arrived and disengaged educationally and/or socially. They told me about a production called The Audition which shares powerful stories centred around what it means to be an asylum seeker. It was inspired by two artists who were asylum seekers themselves who developed and created the work. The final shows were held last week as part of Refugee Week. This production is just one example of the way in which the arts can also be an important platform for people in our community to have their voices heard. Whether they be asylum seekers, refugees or socio-economically disadvantaged, they're able to share their thoughts, emotions and experiences in a more profound way. In a sense, through the art itself, they share what are elemental human experiences with us to connect but also to open up perspectives and see the world in different ways. I've said the arts have always had an important place in my electorate of Wills and we saw the impact that music and the arts had in keeping us somewhat united during COVID. What would it have been like during that COVID period of lockdowns—especially with the kids around and all the rest of it—if we hadn't had some of the go-to arts and performances to keep us sane and help with our mental health but also to keep us connected as human beings? It was a very difficult period. When I said earlier that the arts are the heart and soul of any society—that came to the fore during that COVID period. It enriched our hearts, souls and minds in a very difficult period that people were struggling with and challenged by. During that challenging period, even though we went to the actual production of arts and artists, the output dropped significantly. Some 40 per cent of artists had to find work in other areas just to survive. Half the sector were also concerned about whether they had a future at all given what had happened to them and the impact of it. Even before the pandemic, artists have struggled financially. We know the cliche of poor artists who are sacrificing everything for their work and, in a stroke of genius, are able sell a painting and suddenly become rich. They're the Hollywood stereotypes. There are so many working artists who deserve, even in the best of times, to be paid a fair wage for the work that they do, given its significance and its impact on the community. A lot of them, unfortunately, have to take multiple jobs just to make ends meet. We saw that the coalition government for a decade sat on the Treasury benches there and consistently slashed funding for the arts. I know those opposite who might support the arts might not want to hear this, but it's true. The arts community were neglected by the previous government. They scrapped Creative Australia after they came to power in 2013 and replaced it with nothing. For many years artists had no supports in place. Our artists, who contribute so much richness to our nation, for far too long simply have not been respected. That's just a fact. This is why the Labor Party in opposition, with the shadow minister at the time and now the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, had and has a significant commitment and passion to arts and to artists. We value and elevate the contribution of the creative industries to Australia's social, cultural and economic life. They're too important to be ignored. They're too important to be neglected. As I said, their invaluable contribution to our nation cannot be dismissed. That's their importance. This bill specifically looks to further deliver commitments made by the Albanese Labor government in the new national cultural policy, Revive. I think it's an appropriate word to use to describe the bill. This builds on the Albanese government's commitment to expand and modernise Creative Australia. As part of this, we're establishing four new bodies: Music Australia, Creative Workplaces, First Nations Arts and Writing Australia. Music Australia and Creative Workplaces were set up last year. The First Nations body will commence this year, in 2024, and Writing Australia will start in July next year. The Albanese government respects the critical place of First Nations stories at the centre of our arts and our culture as well. That's why First Nations Arts is placed as the first pillar of our new cultural policy. Art has been an important part of Indigenous cultures for over 65,000 years, and it's essential to the wellbeing, culture and identity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities. The First Nations body will support and promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice. It will have its own board that will have autonomy over the allocation of funds for investment in First Nations art, because the government does believe that First Nations art should be First Nations led. When I was working at SBS, as I mentioned, and NITV came on board, I remember going out to remote and regional parts of Australia and the cities of Australia to meet with Indigenous production companies and Indigenous artists who were working on film and television. That was important engagement because it was about making sure that the Indigenous stories that were being told through the platform of NITV were able to reach as many people as possible so that people could understand, be educated, value and enjoy Indigenous cultures and First Nations storytelling. I think that continues going from strength to strength today at NITV. Writing Australia will be a new body that supports and promotes the Australian literature sector, helping to support authors, illustrators and publishers to create new works. Again, the point about telling Australian stories is of critical importance. That includes writers and illustrators being able to tell their uniquely Australian stories. Yes, there is great literature around the world, which we obviously can all access, but, when we're talking about the market and economics versus the invaluable contribution the arts makes, for me, the arts is not just an economic sector. It's too important to measure just by the economics. A lot of people say, 'We can make an argument that more people go to the NGV than the MCG.' That's great, but not all arts are commercially viable. That doesn't mean they're not important. Not all stories are going to sell millions of copies. That doesn't mean they are not important, unique and valuable or that they don't play a role in our society. Frankly, as a social democrat, I believe that the government has a role to play not just in supporting but in creating the conditions of support for these stories to be told even if they're not commercially viable. The government plays a role in supporting artists in that respect, because otherwise some of those stories will not be told. They will disappear, and they're important for us as Australians. Writing Australia will enable investment in a network of organisations that allow the development of national industry initiatives that increase national and international markets for Australian stories as well as for writers. The government recognises that new technology is disrupting the environment for writers. We understand that. Government policy needs to be modernised to better support these artists, given this disruptive period. The establishment of both Writing Australia and First Nations Arts are part of that larger plan when it comes to the arts. Since we launched Revive, the government has established Creative Australia to modernise arts funding and reverse what were known as the Brandis cuts at the time. I say this again: I know this is a partisan place, but the arts are not just some special plaything. It's not like the de Medicis here, where if you love ballet you can choose to only fund ballet. It doesn't work that way; it shouldn't work that way. It should work in a way where artists and performing artists and writers and visual artists and others are supported right across the board by government with independent sources of funding and not just favoured based on the particular interests of one particular political leader or the government itself. Establishing Creative Workplaces to improve the standards and safety of workers in the arts is important. We've established Music Australia, as I said. We're sharing the national collection so that art is shared with regional and suburban galleries and gets out to the regions, which is important. We've extended lending rights so that Australian writers are better paid. Again, that goes back to those conditions and fair pay and work rights for artists as well. We've boosted funding for performing arts training organisations, and we've provided more support for games developers through Screen Australia as well. We've improved tax breaks for the video games industry as well, which is part of the creative industry. We've increased funding to Sounds Australia to unlock international opportunities for our musicians, who are very, very successful. Tones and I was here the other day. She's had three billion hits on Spotify or whatever it was, which is a remarkable figure given that she started out in Frankston. I remember going out to Frankston. I was scared to go out to Frankston a lot of the time. It was a pretty rough neighbourhood. It's very nice now on the beach. It's a great success story—out of a tough socioeconomic area, you get this wonderful success of an Australian artist like Tones and I. The government has a history of backing artists and backing the arts. The last two cultural policies were delivered under Labor governments. There was Creative Nation under Paul Keating and Creative Australia under Julia Gillard. Art has a powerful way of letting us experience the world around us through a different lens and different perspectives. Artists and their art give so much to our community and to who we are. We need to make sure that we give something back to the artists who are doing this work—this important creative work for our society. This bill outlines the Albanese government's commitment to improving the quality of investment into the arts. The bill is going to ensure that artists and art organisations have greater supports. The government is truly committed to bringing back respect and real tangible support to our artists and to the art sector. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. CONDOLENCES 99 CONDOLENCES Cheng, Ms Yixuan, Darchia, Ms Pikria, Good, Ms Ashlee, Singleton, Ms Dawn, Tahir, Mr Faraz, Young, Ms Jade 99 11:44 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to make a brief contribution to a debate that is important, and I think it is also appropriate that the debate around the awful incidents of 13 April is conducted in Australia's parliament. I think all of us—those of us who are very familiar with Westfield Bondi, unlike me, and those of us who are from a different part of the country—remember where we were when news started to break and the horrific images started to be filtered out into the community. Those events haven't faded and the memory of them mustn't fade. I want to briefly join others, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in paying my condolences to those who lost their lives and to those in mourning. I want to reflect, too, on the significance of the events more broadly and add my voice to those who have been clear in articulating that we cannot fail to remember the events and their enduring consequences. Six people were killed. Six lives were taken, and I join others in recognising the suffering of those who knew and loved Xixuan Cheng, Pikria Darchia, Ash Good, Dawn Singleton, Faraz Tahir and Jade Young. We must remember them. We must also extend our deep appreciation to those confronted by almost unimaginably awful circumstances, who stood up and played their role, supporting those at risk and placing themselves at risk—those who ran towards the danger. I think, of course, about Inspector Amy Scott of the NSW Police Force, whose heroism has been widely recognised. I think, too, of Faraz Tahir, who was amongst those six whose lives were tragically taken from them. A refugee on his first day at work, his heroism should not be forgotten. So many people showed extraordinary bravery that day, and stepped in to help others at great cost to themselves. Many were Australian citizens; some were not. It shows us that everyone in our communities are capable of and have demonstrated that they are caring for those around us. There's no assessment of visa status in circumstances like those confronted by Damien Guerot and Muhammad Taha during those events. It was my great privilege, as Minister for Immigration, to speak to both of those gentlemen, particularly Mr Taha, who was suffering in hospital at the time, and extend the appreciation of a grateful nation in what I hope is a meaningful gesture that has been acknowledged on all sides of the parliament. I think it says a lot about the country we are, that that is so. I want to also acknowledge the contribution of the local member, the member for Wentworth, in this place and more broadly, including in her interactions with me with respect to my responsibilities and my obligations. Her contribution in the parliament was powerful and her advocacy was significant. I want to also acknowledge the Westfield and Scentre Group and their staff for their support and the ongoing assistance they've provided for many impacted individuals and those close to them including families and others. They've worked very closely with my office and the department to ensure that support is available where victims and their families need it. I acknowledge, too, the extraordinary work of the NSW Police Force, who've supported victims as well, as they regularly do. They were there when the incident occurred, and they were also there while people continued to need support, and I'm sure that will continue to be the case. Lastly, I want to thank the women and men of my department for their support for victims and families around events, including funerals. Ensuring that people can travel and support family members makes such a difference at a time of need. In a country like ours, a nation built on migration, I like to think this is a big part of the Australian way. Vale to all of those who had their lives taken. 11:49 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The shocking events at Bondi Junction have impacted many. Six lives were lost, 12 people were injured and many others were traumatised. We've heard much about the heroism of the first responders. I, too, acknowledge the extraordinary work that they did in swiftly addressing this shocking tragedy. A member of my staff was related to Jade Young, one of the six people who died so senselessly at Bondi Junction. I asked Jade's family if they wanted something to be put on the record. So the bulk of my remarks will be statements from Elizabeth Young, the mother of Jade Young; and from Toby Halligan, Jade's cousin. I also want to acknowledge Jade's father, Ivan; her brother, PJ; her partner, Noel; her two daughters; and her many aunts, uncles, cousins and other family. This statement is from Elizabeth Young, the mother of Jade Young: My heart is fractured and our world is shattered. I am angry I will never have those mother/daughter moments that are so simple and precious, so mundane that you forget what the last ever conversation you had with your daughter was about. I am angry that Jade's girls will grow up without the love and care of their mother. I am especially angry that my beautiful, sweet, soft hearted, hard working, loving daughter was robbed of her life. Her daughters were settling into school well, school holidays had just started with the prospect of time to spend with her girls, she was about to take over a good solid architectural practice, she had the love of a good man and great friends … and finally her longed-for puppy, Teddy. Our mental health system must be fixed. We must support those who need help and do better to manage those who pose a danger to others. And we must provide better support to the victims of violent crime. Please take action. There is no solace to be had for our family. There will be no peace. But there must be change. Now I want to read some words from Toby Halligan, Jade's cousin. He said: Working in the Parliament is an enormous privilege. This is a place where we do our best to change this country for the better. Working here while carrying the grief and trauma of Jade's death has felt like a crushing burden. Grief is a private thing and there are no words to express the damage this has done to our family and our sadness. But we have had to find words to share our grief, so that others can share the burden of taking action to ensure such an event can never happen again. Please, help us share that burden. Finally, I gave my personal condolences to the shoppers and the staff affected by this tragedy. Retail workers cop a lot and I know the impacts of this on the retail workers in the Westfield centre are considerable. Your loss and the impact that this has had on the Bondi Junction community and on the nation at large will not be forgotten. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the Federation Chamber. 11:53 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Nairn, Hon. Gary Roy, AO 101 11:54 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders One of the great, unexpected joys of this job is the ability to bring other people's words, feelings and ideas to life in this place. I did not know Gary Nairn particularly well. He was in his second term as the highly respected member for Eden-Monaro, the exemplar of a local member, when I first trod the blue carpet at the other end of this building. Sometime later I worked for who somebody who loved Gary, truly loved him, and I feel so lucky that in my early years of service in this place, the Australian parliament, I saw real, meaningful, enduring friendships and loyalties between politicians, both on the same side and across the aisles. Brendan Nelson would've lain in front of a train for Gary Nairn, so high was his esteem for him. So it was with humility that I reached out to Brendan in London earlier this week to ask if I could read his words about Gary Nairn today, and I'm honoured to read them out now. By word of warning, I should note Brendan has always had an ability to make me cry—so exceptional is he in giving voice to matters of emotions, spirit, what it means to be Australian and, indeed, what it means to serve. I suspect this particular speech may be no different, but here goes: Decent, intelligent, thoughtful, ethical, honest, earnest, loyal, hard working, humble, analytical and methodical. Gary Nairn manifest these qualities over the almost thirty years that I was blessed to know him. Indeed, I am a better person for Gary Nairn having been a part of my life. We first met in 1995. I was the Liberal Party candidate for Bradfield and he, candidate for the then sprawling Labor held bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro. Bradfield and I were to provide him whatever support we could in fundraising and electioneering over five elections. We were colleagues, but we were also friends. As a marginal seat member, Gary was on the backbench placed strategically behind John Howard. As such he would be seen regularly on news reports of parliamentary question time, nodding approvingly with whatever the prime minister was saying. On one occasion when I was attending a Liberal Party meeting in the south of Gary's electorate, he was confronted by one of the party members, "why do you agree with the prime minister all the time?!!" Three days before the 2001 election in which the Tampa controversy had dominated, I was campaigning with Gary deep into his electorate. A large truck arrived delivering freshly minted oversized billboards for placement in proximity to the polling booths. We both pulled the top one from the rear of the truck. An enormous black and white photograph of an emphatic John Howard beneath which was his statement days earlier, "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come". Gary and I looked at one another. He simply said, "I think Saturday will be a good day". Gary's wife Kerrie died in 2005 from the cancer she had battled. She had asked to see me at their home. I was privileged to share those last hours with her and Gary. Her love for him was such that she wanted him to continue in every way to build a better Australia, continue what they had built together and in due course, find happiness again. Although Gary was a stoic man, we both shed our tears with Kerrie. Gary did find love. True love, in Rose. The Liberal Party has had many 'servants'. Gary Nairn came to serve the Liberal Party, not to be served by it. So too, the people of Eden Monaro were to be served. We are a better nation and a better people for Gary Nairn. In that, the love and support he received respectively from Kerrie and Rose were the foundation of his life and service to us. 11:58 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Many members of parliament in the House of Representatives adorn their front windows next to their office doors with all manner of posters—some are propaganda, some deride the other side of politics and some are promotional material for their own electorates. If you walk down the corridors, you'll see some Liberal members have put up a blue poster with the words 'Liberals for regional Australia'. It's in exactly the same font and in the same fashion that the National Party has long had its material printed in. The reason I say this, rather cheekily, is that my predecessor, Kay Hull AO, always considered that the late Gary Nairn was some sort of Nat—a closet National Party member—because he was so very much in tune and aligned with the issues, feelings and concerns of regional Australia. That's not to say that Liberals aren't—they indeed are, and we know that. Kay served with Gary Nairn for some time, and, as such, I reached out to Kay the other day, to ask her to express her feelings about the late Gary Nairn, and she had this to say. 'It was a huge shock when, at 9 pm on the first of June, I received a message that Gary had passed away a few hours before. I had the privilege of serving with Gary from 1998 to 2007, when he lost the bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro that he had held, through enormous dedication and commitment, since 1996. He was a shining example of a true gentleman who treated everyone with respect and value. We were quite close, as his beloved Kerrie, who, sadly, passed away in 2005, was a Leeton girl. Gary attended every National Party Christmas party with me, often claiming he was really a true National'—and she's emphasised that with a couple of exclamation marks! She says: 'I was so happy when he married Rose and together they took on enormous family responsibility.' And I love this—her last line: 'Gary Nairn epitomised what we all aspire to be: that is, a decent, respectful individual; a great loss to his beautiful family and to our entire nation.' Lovely words; beautiful words—typical Kay Hull words. Gary Nairn was an AO. He was awarded that high honour, on a similar level with Kay Hull, because both of them—both of them—contributed mightily after their parliamentary careers were over. As Kay pointed out, the late Gary Nairn was elected to the House of Representatives in 1996. He was re-elected in 1998, 2001 and 2004. He came into the parliament with Kay Hull—or Kay came into the parliament with Gary, pardon me, in 1998. And they were good mates, as Gary was very close to many National Party members, and, of course, his own Liberal Party family. Not only do I express my condolences for his widow; I also express them for their children, Ben and Deborah. When the last drought was at its worst, I was the Deputy Prime Minister. Scott Morrison was the Prime Minister—the former member for Cook. On the eve of the National Drought Summit, Scott and I visited Mulloon Creek, near Canberra. It runs through the Southern Tablelands near Bungendore, 50 kilometres or so east of here—east of Canberra. Mulloon Creek had been recently promoted on the ABC's Australian Story, and those Australian stories are so insightful. We went to see a creek that was still flowing, despite the drought; green with vegetation, in spite of the drought—which had been going for seven months, I might add. Mulloon Creek was the legacy of a very long collaboration between prominent agriculturalist Peter Andrews and the owner of the property, Tony Coote, who had died that August, 2018. For decades, Mr Andrews and Mr Coote had implemented the natural sequence farming system, that Mr Andrews was so fond of, at Mulloon Creek. I say all this because Gary Nairn, continuing on his fine public service, was the chairman of the Mulloon Institute; he was giving back. That is a powerful legacy, when a member of parliament—having done their utmost to serve their local communities, to represent the interests of local people, in this place—can then, after their parliamentary careers, continue to give, continue to contribute, continue to turn up and continue to advocate, fiercely and passionately and proudly, on behalf of local people. And that was Gary Nairn. That is Kay Hull. And I pay tribute to his record of service. I pay tribute to him. He very much welcomed both Scott Morrison and me on that day. He declared that the Mulloon Creek was a model that should be replicated across the nation. Of course, now, with the member for Paterson, as the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Soil, we know firsthand that the answer to climate action is in the very dirt that we stand on. We can do so much. Gary knew that. He identified that. He was a fine regional member, an outstanding human being and a friend to all. He will be very greatly missed not just by his family but by all of those who knew him. Vale Gary Nairn. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 103 ADJOURNMENT Migration: China 103 12:05 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The story of the Chinese Australian community is one of our country's greatest success stories. Our vibrant and thriving country has benefited enormously from the 1.4 million people of Chinese ancestry who've come to our shores over the last two centuries. I could be biased, but the one in five residents in my electorate of Kooyong of Chinese ancestry are some of the very best. Our community is proud that we are a country of migrants. We recognise all migrants' contributions to our culture and to our economic growth, and we celebrate that. But I speak in the chamber today to raise awareness about an issue that I fear threatens our great Chinese Australian migrant story. One of the best ways that a government can show appreciation for the significant contribution of migrant communities is by ensuring that we have a functioning, transparent and efficient migration system. I fear that our Chinese Australian communities are under threat from a system which is slow, complex and poorly designed, and which breaks and holds families apart. Over the last two years, my office has supported more than 250 people, constituents of Kooyong, who have come to us with migration issues, and we are extremely proud of that work. The problems with visas have deeply affected our Chinese Australian community. Today I would like to highlight existing issues in the system, and I would like to let all people from our electorate of Kooyong know that we are here to help. Last year, for example, I met with a group of Chinese Australians who raised their concerns about the business visa subclass 888. They told me that they are frustrated with delays with that visa subclass and with the uncertainty that it creates for them and their families. Some people have already spent a lot of money starting a business, and the long delays and the operational restrictions during the lengthy application process for visas makes it really hard for them to take advantage of new business opportunities. As well as these delays, there just isn't enough support for Chinese Australians who are looking to start their own businesses. The confusing regulations and the lack of information in Chinese language makes it much harder for many in the community to start and run their own businesses. We need to change that. I've written repeatedly to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, and I have helped to get some of these visas across the line, but there is a broader problem. The delays in the system have to be fixed. In no visa subclass are delays more extreme than with parent visas. The parent visa program has processing delays of up to 29 years. That is an untenable situation for many migrants who have Asian parents and who are desperately trying to reunify their family after many years apart. Many Chinese Australians have told me how disruptive this program is. While families wait for a parent visa to be approved they can only enter the country on a tourist visa. That means they have to repeatedly leave the country, and they can never truly settle with their families. One constituent wrote to me about this, writing: Our son Kevin came to Australia alone at the age of 15 to study. Now an adult, he has built a life for himself here, and we are eager to reunite with him and provide him with our love and support. However, the extended separation has taken a toll on our family dynamics, leaving us yearning for a sense of unity and stability. This is an issue of particular concern because of China's former one-child policy, which means that many of the migrants who have come here have very little, if any, family with them. Their parents are their family. These extreme delays are keeping families apart. Migrant communities, such as the Chinese Australian community, have made this country what it is today. My office will continue to help those in Kooyong deal with a complex—and, let's face it, at times, unfair—visa system. We will continue to push the government to improve the system and to make it more fair and more welcoming. If you live in my electorate and you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact my office. My email is monique.ryan.mp@aph.gov.au. Hawke Electorate: Community Events 103 12:10 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Last week, I was delighted to have the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth, Anne Aly, join me at Hawke's very own Yaluk Burron Early Learning Centre in Ballan. This remarkable centre was established with $600,000 of federal funding and opened its doors earlier this year. Investing in early learning is crucial, as it lays the foundations for children's lifelong learning, social skills and overall development. I want to say a big thank you to Natalie, Casey and all the dedicated staff at Yaluk Burron Early Learning Centre for all your hard work. What you do makes a significant difference to the lives of our children and our community. While Minister Aly was in town, we also visited Djerriwarrh Community and Education Services, a local training organisation that does so much for our community in Melton. There, we chatted to a class of students studying early childhood education and care. It was inspiring to hear their insights, and what inspired them to pursue this career and how the government can best continue to support them. Thank you to Trish and Roma for welcoming us, as well as all the students for giving us some time out of their busy schedule. Congratulations on graduating, and thank you to all of the early learning educators across our community. It was great to join Staughton College's Homework Club again last week on 979FM Melton Community Radio. This time, the hosts grilled me about my favourite songs. I threw out Taylor Swift's very upbeat 'Shake It Off', and I embarrassed myself a bit by dropping back into the Red Hot Chili Peppers classic, 'Can't Stop'. Much to my horror, it turned out that absolutely none of the hosts themselves were even born when my extensive choices were released, and they made that very clear to me as we worked our way through my top 20. Despite this confronting reminder of my age, I was very honoured to hear that they no longer consider me just a regular guest and I am now marked as one of their besties. Thanks so much to the gang for having me as a guest on the show once again. Will and his team do an amazing job. It's always a pleasure. Thank you to Will and, indeed, the school and the radio station for their hard work and the amazing show they put on. I can't wait to get back again. The Friends of Werribee Gorge & Long Forest Mallee Inc. are a great local group who do a power of work in revegetation, conservation, research, education and so much more in our community. Their immense effort does so much for our local environment. Last week, I joined them, alongside 50 grade 3 and 4 students from Myrniong Primary School, after a long day of tree-planting, to check out their impressive work and to pop a sausage away as well. I was delighted to see their brand-new water tank and trailer, purchased with assistance from the federal government's 2023 Volunteer Grants, helping the day to run smoothly and make sure that those new plants were freshly watered. It was especially great to catch up with Bob, one of the founding members from 1984, to hear his stories of many years of hard work with the group. A massive thanks also to Gordon, Mary-Beth, Kirsty, Michael and the whole team. I recently had the pleasure of touring some amazing local businesses in my hometown of Ballan with the wonderful Laura Sims from Ballan Builders in her newly-minted role leading the Ballan and District Chamber of Commerce. Our local businesses do such a stellar job serving our community, so it was great to see what they are up to nice and close. I say a huge thankyou to all the businesses who hosted us, including Community Bank Ballan & District, Crossroads Trading, McGrath Ballan, Springfields Garage Ballan, and Ballan and Bacchus Marsh Local Butcher. A personal highlight was joining in on the all-abilities disco, hosted by the fantastic team at T and K Support Services. Your passion and commitment truly make our community of Ballan a wonderful place to live. Every year, the Rotary Club of Bacchus Marsh puts on an amazing art show. This remarkable event not only showcases the incredible depth and diversity of local artistic talent but also provides a platform for our local artists to share their creations with a wider audience. Each year, I am consistently amazed by the creativity, passion and skill on display. It's always a pleasure to attend, and I was delighted to see the well-deserved recognition of Mara Hayler, whose impressive artwork was awarded the prize that I had the privilege of sponsoring this year. I give great thanks Phil McBean and the entire committee for another successful show. I look forward to next year's. Society, Nuclear Energy 104 12:15 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Today I open a new book, a new gospel. I'm going to read a verse from the gospel of Adam: Adam Creighton of the Australian, with a new book called a new book called 'The Book of Common Sense'. For this nation and nations around the world, with regard to the arguments that you and everybody in this room have heard about whether we use nuclear power or we don't use nuclear power—thousands of words written over the last six to eight weeks in newspapers across this land. So I open the new book today: the book of common sense. One of the profits and watchkeepers of this book of common sense that I open today is Adam Creighton. There are others, but there is Adam Creighton particularly in an article in the Australian today which to me says it all. For a start, he talked about how the electoral fortunes of those in Europe, who have voted recently, seem to be changing in dramatic ways. In a biblical reflection, their voting trends are changing, and they're changing because they are people who are thinking and using the book of common sense. In France, the support for the great green movement has halved to 5.5 per cent. In Germany, support for the Greens collapsed 50 per cent, to 12 per cent from 24. In the US, support for nuclear energy for domestic power surged from 43 per cent in 2020 to 57 per cent in 2023. The number of nuclear reactors in the US, which provide around 20 per cent of the country's electricity, declined from a peak of 111 in the eighties to 93 today, but nuclear power is being embraced by the current Biden administration as the only realistic way to achieve net zero. I am enjoying this book of common sense. France has announced it's building at least six and up to 14 new nuclear power stations in the coming years. India is building how many—18 nuclear stations by 2030. China is planning at least 100 new reactors by 2035. Yes, nuclear power stations will be expensive until the speed of production increases and local industry adjusts. State and federal governments in Australia spent around $400 billion of borrowed money during COVID for an excess deaths outcome which was scarcely different from Sweden, who spent barely anything in comparison. Yes, this book of common sense. Since 1997, fossil fuel consumption in absolute terms around the world has increased 55 per cent. Its share of the total has declined from 86 per cent to 82, down four per cent. We haven't been able to achieve that much in the grand scheme of the global energy transition. For affluent nations like ours to achieve net-zero carbon goals in international treaties that they've signed up to, they are required to commit to an annual expenditure of at least 20 per cent of GDP for decades. More than 80 million kilometres of new transmission lines across the world—the equivalent of redoing the entire global grid—would need to be built by 2040. I put to you that I have opened the book of common sense; it's not the first time you'll hear this gospel from me. I'm glad that the minister is in the room, and I hope she and her department take good account of this opening of the book of common sense. Gilmore Electorate: Arts and Culture 105 12:20 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I'm not going to sing for you today, but I am going to sing the praises of the many cultural groups that bring joy to my community in Gilmore. Whether it's through live gigs in local venues, community choirs, orchestral performances or the magic of musical theatre, music and live performance are so important, especially in regional communities on the South Coast that have been heavily impacted by bushfires, floods and COVID-19 isolation in recent years. From a young age, I have played and performed music locally. I regularly attend local concerts and theatrical performances, and I have seen how significant music has been for not only entertaining but reconnecting our local communities. Playing or listening to music is uplifting. It brings people together across the boundaries of culture, age and ability, which is why I'm pleased to have been able to support a number of organisations in Gilmore through a series of Albanese government grants programs. Our government's volunteers grants have provided the Nowra Town Band with $3,000, the Milton District Band with $3,500 and the Albatross Musical Theatre Company in Nowra with $3,000 to ensure they can continue to enrich our society through social and cultural experiences. These small grants help volunteer organisations to purchase things like music stands, sound gear and storage containers. They help with the cost of training volunteers and even supply fuel vouchers for transporting equipment. The funding is one way the Albanese government is making a real difference to grassroots volunteer organisations that have such a vital role to play in our communities—groups like the Albatross Musical Theatre Company, which presents a number of fabulous live shows at the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre stage each year. The shows are really magnificent and provide a wonderful space for performers of all ages to showcase their talent and for young singers and actors to develop their skills and confidence. I am a proud supporter of AMTC and their junior ensemble, JAM. The magnificent Milton District Band performs at community events around town throughout the year, from festivals and markets to school fetes. Our government's volunteer grant allowed the Milton District Band to host a collaborative two-day band workshop with wind bands from Shoalhaven and Wollongong in February, which culminated in a public concert at the Dunn Lewis Centre in Ulladulla. It was fantastic to receive a letter from the bandmaster, who said the event provided an opportunity for 40 musicians of all levels to interact and connect before pulling off a public performance with only a day's intensive training. How good is that? In Batemans Bay, the Eurobodalla Chamber Orchestra was the recipient of a $2,748 grant through the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal's Strengthening Rural Communities program. The orchestra provides chamber music at community events such as the River of Art Festival and Children's Week and performs Christmas carols. They also perform at local aged-care facilities. Many of these performances are in the outdoors, so I'm thrilled that this grant will allow the orchestra to purchase wind-resistant music stands and perspex sheets to protect music scores. These relatively small things can make a big difference during a live performance. Just this month, the owner of Fillmore's Garage in Kiama, Morgan Lewis, was walking on air after receiving a $45,000 Live Music Australia grant. The Revive grant will assist Fillmore's with purchasing equipment, as well as with production costs and artist fees to support the development, growth and innovation of Australian contemporary live music. The funds will provide 12 months of music programming at Fillmore's and will allow the venue to offer a financial guarantee for touring artists, giving them more confidence to travel to Kiama. Morgan is extremely passionate about live music and provides a fabulous space for up-and-coming musicians to fine-tune their craft in a supportive local venue. It is vital that we continue to support our Australian live music industry and encourage local musicians to perform in local venues like Fillmore's—venues where people come together to wine, dine, dance, sing and just have fun. We all know that playing music, listening to music and singing together are powerful tools for developing the mind, building relationships and connecting community, from the local pub to the big stage, and from preschools to nursing homes, which is why I am proud to support, and will continue to support, the wonderful organisations and businesses that are bringing music and so much joy to my community. Casey Electorate: Rotary Clubs, Homelessness, Mental Health 106 12:25 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey June is an important time for Rotary Clubs all across the country and across the communities of Casey. It's a time when we get together to celebrate changeover. We say thank you to those outgoing presidents and committees and we say, 'Congratulations, good luck and we're here to support you,' to the new presidents. I had the opportunity and the honour to attend the Healesville Rotary changeover last Thursday to congratulate my good friend Sally on becoming the president of Healesville Rotary. The energy that she will bring to the role will make sure that the community in Healesville will continue to get so many benefits. For 48 years Healesville Rotary has been supporting the community of Healesville. Congratulations to Sally and everyone at Healesville Rotary. We are very lucky in Casey to have so many Rotary Clubs—in Lilydale, in Wandin, in Monbulk and in the Upper Yarra—that give back to our community. As I said, through this month we're going through changeover. I thank those that had the opportunity to serve last year, and I thank those that have taken the responsibility to serve moving forward. It's an important role and an important responsibility. It's because we face so many challenges that we need to do what we can at a governmental level, but community groups play a key role. My community, like many communities, is not immune from the challenges of housing affordability. Yarra Ranges Council, which maps the electorate of Casey, has one of the lowest levels of private rentals in Melbourne and one of the lowest levels of social housing. Our combined rate of homelessness and marginal housing increased by 19 per cent between 2016 and 2021. We're not alone in that challenge. It requires—what I like to talk about—the four levels working together: federal, state, council and community. We need the community to support us. I want to pay tribute to the many amazing organisations all across Casey that help those with homelessness with the challenges they face—particularly my good friend Neal Taylor at Holy Fools. They've moved into their new location in Lilydale. It was great to go to their garage sale and support them and provide a few DVDs—too many DVDs! My wife was very happy that they left our garage and went to the garage sale. But they were able to raise important funds for Neal and the team, to support their initiatives like Street Angels. I've had the opportunity to go and visit and serve food at Street Angels and talk to people about the challenges they face. You see a range of people struggling with homelessness, struggling with short-term problems and struggling with long-term problems. With homelessness, it's important that we acknowledge that it's not just about finding a house. There are also the underlying mental health issues that are sometimes at play—not for everyone but for some. We need to continue to do more to support those with mental health issues. I signed up to support headspace with the Push-Up Challenge this month. As my mum likes to say, 'The world is paved with good intentions.' I had the good intention of completing the challenge fully. Unfortunately I fell short, but I tried and that is the most important thing. But it did raise awareness. It did raise funds. I thank those who joined in supporting headspace. We're lucky to have the headspace in Lilydale. It's a spoke off the hub of Knox. We need to continue to support that. We also need to look at things that we can control in mental health, particularly youth mental health. It was disappointing to see that the free Medicare subsidised mental health sessions were cut from 20 sessions to 10 sessions in the previous budget in the last two years from the new government, but I am proud to be part of a coalition that is committed to reinstating those 20 sessions. I hear from so many people that it being 10 sessions just means that they have to stretch it out; 20 sessions allow them to get the care on a regular basis that they need. Mental health support shouldn't be about your bank balance. The report that the government commissioned recommended that the 20 sessions stayed Medicare funded and free, so we're committed to that. We'll continue to fight for that. I'll continue to make sure that mental health support is a top priority for myself and for the coalition, because I know it is a big issue and a big challenge for many people in Casey. Sydney Electorate: Aviation Industry 107 12:31 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I'm rising today with a slight sense of deja vu, because I've just heard some troubling news once again from Qantas about a proposed retirement of some of its aircraft. There was a media release from Qantas on Tuesday. They said that they would be acquiring 14 midlife Dash 8-400 aircraft, with 19 smaller turboprop aircraft being phased out. This has been spoken about by Qantas for some time, and I have had many conversations, including at the CEO level, with Qantas about this. The reason I am particularly troubled by this is that Lord Howe Island, one of the most beautiful places in Australia, is part of my electorate. Lord Howe Island has a short runway. The 19 smaller turboprop aircraft are the aircraft that Qantas has been running to and from Lord Howe Island for many years now. The larger Dash 8-400s that they're proposing to put into service can't land or take off on this runway. There have been all sorts of studies over the years on whether it is possible to expand the runway. It's simply not possible to expand the runway. For Lord Howe Island, the loss of a regular air service by Qantas would be an absolute disaster. The main source of income and employment on Lord Howe Island is the tourism that the island is so justly famous for. This is a World Heritage area that has no more tourists on any given night than 400, but over the course of a year you actually see about 16,000 visitors. Most families on the island get at least some, if not all, of their income from those tourist visits. Lord Howe Island really is one of the most spectacular places in the world. It is absolutely justly acknowledged through its World Heritage listing. It has a very well-managed and sustainable tourism industry, as I've said, but it does nevertheless share some of the challenges that any remote community has. Every item on Lord Howe Island—all of the basics: food, building materials, clothing and all the rest of it—have to come in by freight. They come in by boat or by plane. When you're talking about food and medicine in particular, obviously planes are very important. Those regular air services are not just important for bringing in tourists. People who live on Lord Howe Island have a wonderful medical service on Lord Howe Island for the basics, but anything more complicated requires travel to the mainland. A lot of children go to the mainland for boarding school in their later years of schooling. Certainly if they want to go to TAFE or university, they need to be travelling to the mainland. People have family members on the mainland that they may have caring responsibilities for. You can picture of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, just how important a regular air service is for the residents of Lord Howe Island. One of the things that are frustrating about this scenario, where Qantas are now saying, 'It's not convenient anymore, because we don't want to run this type of aircraft to Lord Howe Island,' is that, over many years and at difficult times, Qantas, as our national carrier, have been able to rely on the people of Australia to get them through the tough times. I feel that that gives the airline a responsibility to be there for Australians at times like this, and the fact that it's no longer 'convenient' for them to run a particular type of aircraft doesn't absolve them of a responsibility to continue to provide what is an absolutely vital service for this wonderful community. I can tell you that over the years I've had many discussions about this with Qantas and obviously with the Lord Howe Island Board and residents that would be impacted by this. I think Qantas have a responsibility to come up with a solution. They've said that they won't leave the island without a solution, but I really want to start to hear right now what those options are. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:36