2024-07-04 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 4 July 2024

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

STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 4973 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: 10th Anniversary 4973 Reference to Federation Chamber 4975 09:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the tenth anniversary of the MH17 tragedy be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 4975 BUSINESS Rearrangement 4975 09:18 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) private Members' business order of the day No. 32 relating to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements) Bill 2024 being called on immediately; (2) debate on the second reading of the bill continuing for a period of no longer than one hour, with the time for each speech limited to 10 minutes; (3) questions then being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; (4) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with: (a) one question to be put on all government amendments; (b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments; (c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and (d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to; (5) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and (6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by the Member for Clark or the Member for Mayo. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements) Bill 2024 introduced to the House on Monday amends the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to ban advertising of a licensed, interactive wagering service—that is, a gambling service. This will prohibit television, print, radio and online advertising of interactive gambling services such as telephone and online gambling. There is a real urgency to deal with this bill today because the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, chaired by the late Peta Murphy, released its report You win some, you lose more:online gambling and its impacts on those experiencinggambling harm almost exactly one year ago. The bipartisan report included 31 important recommendations including banning gambling advertising. With it being a year since that very important report was released, the government is still yet to even formally respond to the recommendations, let alone implement any of the recommendations. This is despite the fact that there is such widespread concern, even outrage, in the community about the incessant advertising of gambling services, in particular, before and after high-profile sporting events on the weekends or at night when children are watching. The harm caused by gambling addiction cannot be overstated. It causes poverty, loss of jobs, relationship breakdowns, homelessness, ill-health and even suicide. A report in Victoria even found that gambling addiction is the second most prevalent motivation for crime in that state. This is no small matter. Hence, there is an urgent need to deal with this. Australians lose more than $25 billion per year to gambling, making it the highest per capita spend by the people in any nation in the world. Almost half of Australian adults who do gamble are at risk of or are already experiencing gambling harm according to research conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Online and sports betting has become especially problematic. It's very telling that the Australian Communications and Media Authority reports that more than a million advertisements bombarded Australians between 2022 and 2023 alone. No wonder we're all sick of the ads. Roy Morgan Research shows that the number of people betting on sports has more doubled in the last five years. It has become a real issue. The Australian Institute of Family Studies found that the link between gambling advertising is not only strong but strongest amongst our young people. One in five young women and one in seven young men began gambling because of an advertisement. It also found that 40 per cent of those already at risk of gambling related harm gamble impulsively after seeing or hearing promotional material. Recent polling by Roy Morgan shows that gambling addicts make up 20 per cent of some sports betting companies' entire company base. There is an urgent need to deal with this. This is what the community is calling out for. This would be us responding to a genuine and very significant community concern, so I ask that we deal with this matter urgently. I commend the member for Mayo for bringing the bill to the House on Monday. It's the second time the member for Mayo has done that and the second time I have seconded it. I'll end there because I would like to allow five minutes for a contribution from an opposition member. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 09:24 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I certainly second this motion. We need to deal with this today because we have a duty as members of parliament to take the leadership and create a better Australia. We know that gambling advertising causes enormous harm. We need to debate this now. We can no longer sit and do nothing. It has been a year—a year!—since the report was handed down by the late Peta Murphy. She had such courage in putting together that report, and I think it's such a great shame that nothing of any substance has happened in this place in a year. We know from that report by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs that online gambling and gambling advertising to children, young people and those experiencing gambling addiction causes enormous and recognised harm. We know from that report that Australians demand an end to the saturation of the advertising of gambling products. That report had another key recommendation, and that is a phasing out of advertising of online gambling over three years. We've lost a year due to the minister's inaction. A year has gone—31 recommendations and nothing is being done in this place. And that makes Australians incredibly frustrated—I would say even angry—that their children are being bombarded, as the member for Clark said. We are talking about 948 gambling advertisements broadcast each day in 2021 in Victoria on free-to-air television alone. This has grown exponentially. If you go back to 2016, it was just 374. I say 'just', but that is still an incredibly large amount. What has happened is that our children now see this as normal. When they're watching a game of football, our children see it as incredibly normal that they're seeing gambling advertising; or that when they open up social media, they're seeing gambling advertising. They're being told to bet with their mates—there is a proliferation of online apps—and this is causing enormous harm. Roy Morgan Research, in the 12 months to March 2024, and the Alliance for Gambling Reform showed the number of people betting on sport has more than doubled in the last five years, and yet we do nothing in this place. That is why this motion must be supported. We need to debate this and we need to have some action in this place, and we haven't seen action. I'm sure the minister's going get up and talk about BetStop. That was actually started by the previous government, and that is one small thing that we need to fix. But we must address the proliferation and the saturation of gambling advertising like we did in the 1980s and 1990s with respect to cigarette advertising. This is a public health issue; this is actually a public health emergency. We have people who are taking their lives, who have horrendous health issues, who are losing their homes, who are becoming homeless and who are having family breakdowns. We know that this is very much affecting young people, particularly young men, and we are providing no protections in this place—no protections at all. It's like it's just not an issue that anyone in here really wants to deal with, and we need to. It is our duty as members of parliament; we are elected in this place to help create a better Australia, and we are not doing that when we are not addressing this issue. So I would urge all members in this place, let us at least have a debate on this. We can no longer allow the government to do nothing in this place when the harm is so real—the harm to young Australians in particular. I urge the minister: you have 31 recommendations which you have not even responded to formally in the parliament. Please, I beg you—and Australian mums and dads beg you—to do the right thing and act on those recommendations. Let's discuss this bill and end gambling advertising now. 09:29 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway This motion is not about the substance of the issue of gambling harm—and that is an issue, of course, that this government cares very deeply about. This motion is regarding a suspension of standing orders, and that is what we are debating here. I thank the member for Clark and the member for Mayo for their comments on this suspension motion. I would very respectfully say to the member for Mayo that I rebut the idea that this government has done nothing when it comes to addressing gambling harms. It is something of substance to go through the many issues that we have examined here and the many initiatives that we have undertaken and completed. On that point, I again would very respectfully say to the member and to all members here that the issue that I will discuss, the National Self-Exclusion Register, is not, as the member for Mayo says, a small thing. The member for Clark well knows that he has long been an advocate of self-exclusion mechanisms. We have BetStop as a self-exclusion mechanism, and it is enabling tens of thousands of Australians right now, in a short space of time, to exclude themselves from all forms of online wagering literally with one touch. That is not a small thing, as I will detail shortly. I also respectfully say to the member for Mayo, who said that the National Self-Exclusion Register was an initiative of the former government, that the reality is that, although the enabling legislation was given royal assent in December 2019, it wasn't until this government was elected that it was actually launched, and it was made effective to operate in August last year. I would urge all members of this House to promote BetStop in their local communities. It is, as I said, a mechanism that the member for Clark has long advocated, and it is one that is having real results. I also note that the work of the late member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, has had a big impact on this parliament and on the community, and this government and I have made it very clear that the status quo in relation to wagering advertising is untenable. Recently the Alliance for Gambling Reform released new data with extensive research. That evidence is concerning. Those insights show, through 16,000 interviews, that the number of people betting on sports has actually doubled in the last five years; more than a quarter of all men aged 18 to 24 and a third of men aged 25 to 34 now bet on sport; and 10 per cent of sports betters are classified as experiencing harm caused by gambling. As confronting as that data is, it is certainly appreciated that the Alliance for Gambling Reform highlights it and also are engaged with the government on reforms. We know there's an established link between gambling harms and other harms, we know that the impacts are greater in regional Australia and we know that children are being actively groomed into gambling being a central aspect of enjoying sport. That is why this government is taking on the challenge to reduce those harms. We have been acting since forming government, including—again, as I respectfully point out to the member for Mayo—preverification and the credit card ban. They are two recommendations that actually were initiated by this government and are having real results. We want to get these reforms right, to deliver both harm reduction and cultural change. It's not a straightforward exercise, and we're determined to ensure that our response is capable of implementation and makes a real difference when it comes to harm reduction. For context for honourable members, when the last set of gambling ad restrictions were introduced in 2018 by those opposite, the results showed a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on TV and radio, and that included an 86 per cent increase on regional TV. This was at a time when the online wagering industry was experiencing massive growth, with more and more Australians, particularly young men, signing up to bet. But the important issue here is that we have fully implemented the remaining elements of the National Consumer Protection Framework. We have acted on reports like the Stevens review in 2020, which the former government sat on but we actually released and made sure that we were able to give effect to those provisions around simulated gambling. We've updated the ineffective 'gamble responsibly' messaging on wagering advertising with new evidence based taglines. And, as I said, we have implemented the mandatory customer ID preverification. Of significance, the government launched BetStop for people experiencing gambling harms. It's a free service allowing customers to exclude themselves for three months or for up to a lifetime from all Australian licensed interactive online and telephone wagering services with a single step. It prohibits Australian licensed interactive wagering service providers from letting a self-excluded individual open an account or place a bet, sending marketing material to self-excluding individuals and disclosing information about those persons. Nearly 26,000 Australians have registered with BetStop. Eighty per cent are under the age of 40; most of them are younger than 30, demonstrating how much online gambling is impacting young people in our community; and 40 per cent of people who've registered have opted for a lifetime ban. It is in fact the most targeted harm reduction initiative to date in terms of directly reaching Australians experiencing harms and enabling them to put an end to their betting activity. And as I said, I encourage all members of parliament to promote this service in their communities. It is one of those initiatives that can actually change lives with one step. But there is still more to do, and we know that this is an area that is complex. It is an area in which we are playing catch-up compared to the reforms that actually showed an increase in gambling advertising under the former government, but we continue to identify and pursue harm reduction initiatives. In response to the report, we as a government have been undertaking broad consultation with harm reduction advocates, broadcasters, digital platforms, sporting codes, and wagering and racing industries as well as public health experts and academics. And I, and also on behalf of the Minister for Social Services, am sure these stakeholders who have shared their perspectives and expertise in this area, particularly the shame and stigma felt by people who are experiencing gambling harm, is one that is very potent and is guiding our principles here when it comes to harm minimisation in this area. We are committed to developing meaningful solutions that support families and protecting vulnerable Australians from the harms of gambling. We will respond to the parliamentary inquiry report recommendations, as has been our undertaking and as we have demonstrated we are carrying out already. We are committed to reform and to reducing gambling harms in the community, and to build on the reforms that we have already implemented. The last point that I will make is about the need to ensure that there is buy-in by the states when it comes to harm reduction. We know that the National Consumer Protection Framework went over time. We brought it to a conclusion with the last pieces, but there are a lot of areas where state and Commonwealth cooperation is needed as well. Our friend Peta Murphy highlighted this in her report. The inquiry was very detailed about the need for a national approach to this issue, and that is one in particular that the Minister for Social Services has been pursuing and it's one that we, as a government, will continue to pursue as we go through this reform process. So again, I will highlight that this has been a government that has delivered more when it comes to harm reduction from gambling than has been done in the last decade. And while this is obviously a highly complex area where there is a multitude of stakeholders, we are working through this diligently. We're ensuring that this is a framework that is actually capable of implementation. It is one thing to legislate a ban; it is another thing to make it effective. And we see that not only in the evidence I just cited about changes in advertising bans on broadcast actually resulting in an increase in advertising, but we know about the proliferation in other areas as well. I thank the members for their interest. As always, my door is open to provide a briefing on what my department is doing in this area, and I look forward to hearing from members. 09:39 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I stand to support the motion of the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, seconded by the member for Mayo. Thank you, Minister, for your explanation, especially on BetStop. I will look into that. However, in my community in Fowler, as you probably know, we've got one of the most prolific gambling problems. Especially for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, it is a huge issue, as you can appreciate. There is gambling advertising on television, radio, print, film, billboards and online—especially online. Young people are online now more often than ever, and I think we need to do something as a government to ensure kids don't see those gambling advertisements. I support the need for us to actually have this debate in the House, to talk about the severity of gambling. We can't just put it off. BetStop might be one aspect that can help, and I will look into that, but I don't know if that will help my culturally diverse community, for instance. Is BetStop something where people pick up the phone and call and try to exclude themselves? I don't know if that will work for people in my community. Therefore, we need to do something; we need to be proactive in ensuring that gambling advertising online and on billboards stops. It impacts us; it impacts our daily lives, especially in my community. So I really support the member for Clark and the member for Mayo's motion. And I thank the minister for the opportunity to speak on this. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.    

The House divided. [09:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 17 AYES Bandt, A. P. Broadbent, R. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 58 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 4979 BILLS Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 4979

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

First Reading 4979 Second Reading 4979 09:50 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 amends theMigration Act 1958 to establish the legislative framework for a new temporary skilled worker visa, the skills in demand visa. This legislation creates the income thresholds and indexation for the proposed streams of that visa, as well as streamlining labour market testing requirements. This bill is a necessary, important step to introduce a better targeted, temporary skilled work visa as part of the Albanese Labor government's Migration Strategy. The Migration Strategy is a set of commitments to address a decade of neglect in Australia's visa system. It's about a more prosperous, fair and secure Australian labour market. If you are a worker, whether local or migrant, the Migration Strategy means stronger protections of your wages and conditions. For businesses, it means getting the workers and skills you need to grow and be more productive. The amendments in this bill are an important step in delivering a better-planned migration system, meeting Australia's skills needs, and laying a strong foundation for the future. The provision of legislated minimum income thresholds in the Migration Act for the streams in the skills in demand visa will ensure that people working on these visas are less vulnerable to exploitation. This bill ensures workers receive fair remuneration through indexed salary thresholds. The amendments in this bill will guarantee that migrant wages will increase alongside Australian wages, reducing the likelihood of exploitation of skilled migrants. This is good for all workers, regardless of where they are from. The specialist skills stream will attract highly-skilled specialists to ensure businesses can quickly and easily recruit top talent. Eligibility criteria would, among other things, require an applicant to be earning at least $135,000 per year. The specialist skills stream will recognise these workers meet a national need that is beyond filling a narrowly defined gap in the labour market. Highly skilled migrants bring significant economic benefits. They are more likely to bring productivity enhancing knowledge and ideas and create jobs for locals. Most temporary skilled migrants will come through the core skills stream. This stream is designed to bring in the skilled employees Australia needs, now and in the future, to ensure we are able to provide ourselves with the goods and services we need to support our way of life. Eligibility criteria would, among other things, require an applicant to be earning at least $73,150 per year. These thresholds, to be implemented under the new skills in demand visa, replace the current temporary skilled migration income threshold. Placing such a threshold in the act, and making it subject to annual indexation—instead of continuing to specify it in a legislative instrument made by the minister—provides greater certainty for both sponsors and workers going forward, whilst providing greater strength to restore integrity to the migration system. Labor has long called for indexation of these important salary thresholds and this bill ensures this will happen into the future. For too long, these salaries were not indexed and the temporary skilled migration income threshold remained at $53,900 from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2023. This bill also delivers on another commitment in the government's Migration Strategy, by establishing a legislative framework to underpin a public register of approved work sponsors. This register will provide greater protections and oversight mechanisms, helping to tackle migrant worker exploitation and misuse of the visa system. Importantly, this register will provide a resource to check that a sponsoring employer is legitimate. The development of a public register that includes the name of the approved sponsor, their business postcode, the number of sponsored workers and their occupations will encourage transparency, monitoring and oversight. This managed approach to Australia's visa system ensures a stronger workforce, which in turn strengthens the Australian community. This bill will help ensure we have the skills we need for the future and, ultimately, make sure the system is working in the interests of all Australians. Migrants make a valuable contribution not only to Australia's prosperity but also to our communities, our national identity, and our connections across the world. This bill is an important step towards implementing the Albanese Labor government's Migration Strategy. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 4981

Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024

First Reading 4981 Second Reading 4981 09:57 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 is part of a package of three bills which together will enact a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for multinational enterprises operating in Australia with an annual global revenue of 750 million euros (approximately A$1.2 billion) or greater. These bills, upon receiving royal assent, will apply to fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2024. The global minimum tax will enable Australia to apply top-up tax on a resident multinational parent or subsidiary company where the group's income is taxed below 15 per cent overseas. The domestic minimum tax will enable Australia to apply top-up tax for any low-taxed domestic income before a foreign country would otherwise take that tax under the new rules. These bills represent a landmark achievement in the international tax landscape and follow on from our government's 2023-24 budget announcement that we would implement a global minimum tax and a domestic minimum tax. It marks further progress on the government's election commitment to support pillar 2 of the OECD/G20 Two-Pillar Solution to address the tax challenges from the digitalisation of the economy. It also builds on the government's multinational tax integrity package to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. I'll come back to that in a moment. This package of bills will align Australia with approximately 60 jurisdictions including the likes of Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan and New Zealand who have all taken steps to implement either a global or domestic minimum tax, or both. By implementing these minimum taxes alongside other lead jurisdictions as part of a coordinated global approach, Australia will be making a key contribution to prevent a race to the bottom on corporate income tax rates. Establishing a floor on tax competition will help lead to a fairer domestic and international tax system. The floor on tax competition offers Australia various important benefits. Chief among them, the incentive for multinationals to shift profits away from Australia to low tax jurisdictions will be reduced. This is because the 15 per cent minimum tax rate will apply irrespective of which jurisdiction a multinational operates in, making it more likely that profits made in Australia will be taxed in Australia. This will also improve the competitiveness of smaller domestic businesses in Australia due to the reduced tax advantages available to multinationals. Further, implementing a global and domestic minimum tax will reduce the corporate tax rate differential between Australia and low-tax jurisdictions, making Australia a more attractive place to invest in, which will boost economic growth. The first global and domestic minimum tax returns, however, will not be due until 30 June 2026, giving multinationals time to adapt their compliance and reporting systems. This bill implements the core rules of the global and domestic minimum taxes. In particular, it sets out the framework and scope for the imposition of top-up taxes under the two minimum taxes. In giving effect to this, the bill has been drafted to be consistent with the global anti-base erosion rules as agreed and finalised by the OECD inclusive framework, a network of 145 member jurisdictions. The global anti-base erosion rules set out the requirements and outcomes a jurisdiction's global and domestic minimum taxes need to meet. For example, consistent with the global anti-base erosion rules, the bill will not apply to government entities, international organisations, pension funds, investment funds and real estate investment funds that are parent entities of a multinational group, not-for-profit organisations and income associated with international shipping. The government intends to finalise the subordinate legislation in the form of ministerial rules, which is necessary for the bill to operate effectively. Such rules will build upon the framework established by this bill, setting out various computational and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to the global and domestic minimum taxes in Australia. The authority to make such ministerial rules is provided for in this bill. The bill further allows for any ministerial rules created after this bill is passed to operate retrospectively, being necessary to align with the bill's retrospective application from 1 January 2024. Enacting this package of bills to implement a global and domestic minimum tax in Australia is estimated to increase receipts by $370 million dollars over the five years from the 2022-23 financial year. Reforming multinational tax isn't just about protecting much needed revenue. It's also about fairness. A small company operating in suburban Australia isn't conniving to cut their tax bill by using a Cayman Islands subsidiary. Suburban firms shouldn't have to compete with tax-dodging multinationals. A fair go for families and local firms is precisely what we're aiming to deliver. Three years ago, academics from the University at Albany and the University of Missouri published a research paper arguing that company taxes should be abolished. Part of their argument was that transfer pricing by multinationals has become so widespread that policymakers should give up on corporate taxation altogether. It's a stark reminder that when it comes to multinational tax reform what's at stake is nothing less than the future of the corporate tax itself. I believe it is good economics to save corporate tax, but it will take deft policymaking and proper tax administration to do so. Company taxes go back over a century. The United States introduced a corporate tax in 1898, but it was overruled by their supreme court a year later. In 1913, after they had sorted out their constitutional issues, the US company tax rate was set at a measly one percent. Australia introduced our company tax in 1915. Then attorney-general and future prime minister Billy Hughes told parliament that it was 'necessary to meet the great and growing liabilities created by the war'. Hughes put the issue bluntly: 'I know of no other means whereby we could raise the necessary revenue.' Today, while the essential purpose of corporate income tax remains the same, the challenges of collecting corporate taxes have grown enormously. Part of that arises because company taxes are simpler in an economy that makes physical products. Agriculture, mining and manufacturing have clear locations of production. But, if a company's output is digital, then it's easier to artificially shift the location of production to the place with the lowest tax rate. For instance, in 2016, Google's parent company, Alphabet, made US$19 billion in revenue in Bermuda, a small island where it had virtually no workers, where it owned virtually no assets and where the corporate tax rate is zero per cent. You get a billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking real money. Summing up the problem, economists Thomas Torslov, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman estimate that close to 40 per cent of multinational profits—around US$600 billion—has shifted to low-tax countries each year. What's the cost of this activity to the revenue base of countries such as Australia? In a separate analysis, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman have tracked the damage done by the global profit-shifting industry. They calculate that, in 2019, around 10 per cent of corporate tax income was lost as the result of global profit shifting. They estimate that, back in 1975, this figure was less than 0.1 per cent. A race to the bottom between nation states has seen average corporate tax rates fall from 49 per cent in 1985 to 24 per cent in 2019. Australia relies more heavily on company tax relative to other OECD countries, even though Australia's aggregate tax burden across all levels of government is lower than the OECD average. Since company taxes comprise 19 per cent of Australia's revenue base, to accept the accounting tricks and dodgy behaviour that multinationals engage in would have a massive impact on Australia. Multinational tax avoidance means fewer resources available to fund our schools and hospitals. It means small businesses face unfair competition from large multinationals that are using tax dodges that aren't available to smaller firms. The situation for local small businesses ends up being like a team forced to play against a headwind through the entire game. Among the shenanigans we've seen are shell companies created in low- or no-tax jurisdictions, allowing multinationals to funnel huge profits into secret locations where they have zero employees and no physical office. We've seen one part of a multinational group purporting to owe another part of the same group a huge amount of debt, shifting profits by paying large amounts of interest to itself in another country and deducting those payments from their Australian tax bill. The accounting details may be complex, but the principle is simple: all companies, large or small, should pay their fair share. These examples of companies exploiting tax lurks are only possible for companies with cross-border operations. This gives them an unfair advantage over local firms and comes at a cost to other participants in the economy. This unfair advantage ultimately weighs on the broader health of the economy, limiting productivity, economic growth and wages. This bill should be seen in the context of the Australian government's strong commitment to multinational tax integrity. We've already delivered four significant multinational tax reforms. First: our new subsidiary disclosure law will require public companies listed and unlisted to disclose information on the number of their subsidiaries in the country of tax residency. This will shine a light on how companies structure their subsidiaries including for tax purposes. Second, and as part of the Buy Australia Plan under the Fair Go Procurement Framework: companies with tenders and government procurement processes valued above $200,000 are now required to disclose their country of tax residency. This change complements broader changes the government has implemented in taking decisive action on tax adviser misconduct, including by increasing tax promoter penalties and increasing the powers of tax regulators. Third: we've boosted funding for the Australian Taxation Office's Tax Avoidance Taskforce in the October 2022-23 budget by around $200 million a year. In the 2024-25 budget, we've further extended the operation of the taskforce to 2028. This investment has bolstered Australian Taxation Office crackdowns on tax dodging by multinational enterprises, large Australian public and private groups and extremely wealthy individuals. Fourth: we've taken aim at a common technique that multinationals use to minimise tax by tightening Australia's thin capitalisation rules. Our new approach reduces the ability of taxpayers to create artificial interest-bearing debt in Australia as a way of maximising interest related deductions that in turn reduce their overall tax bill. We've also created the new debt deduction creation rule, which will work hand in glove with the thin capitalisation rules, to target the use of related party debt to artificially inflate an entity's interest expenses, minimising their tax paid. In addition, we're in the process of delivering five further multinational tax reforms. First, the government's bill to create a public country-by-country reporting register has been introduced to parliament and once it has passed, reporting requirements will apply from 1 July 2024. Creating a public country-by-country reporting register will deliver a key part of the government's multinational tax integrity election commitment. It will see Australia put in place a world-leading set of disclosure laws. Second, the government is progressing its election commitment to implement a public register of beneficial ownership, which will show who ultimately owns, controls or receives profits from a company or legal vehicle operating in Australia. Third, we've also added to our election agenda, by strengthening the way our foreign investment system reduces the risk of multinational investors avoiding tax. On 1 May 2024, the Treasurer announced changes to deliver a stronger, more streamlined and more transparent approach to foreign investment. Foreign investment has a key role to play in our economy but only if it's in the national interest. So we're making sure that foreign investors pay their fair share of tax in Australia. This includes releasing updated guidance about the kind of tax arrangements that will attract greater scrutiny—such as those that are overly complex. Fourth, to further protect our tax system from foreign investments where investors currently have incentives to circumvent intended outcomes in our tax settings, we're strengthening the foreign resident capital gains tax regime. As part of the 2024-25 budget, the government announced it will strengthen the regime in line with the OECD standards to ensure foreign residents pay their fair share of tax in Australia and to provide greater certainty about the operation of the rules. Fifth, in this year's budget, we also announced a new royalty penalty. From 1 July 2026, the penalty will apply to significant global entities (with annual revenue of $1 billion) where they avoid Australian royalty-withholding tax by understating the value of royalty payments or disguising them as some other kind of transaction. These nine measures—four that we have delivered, five that are in train—demonstrate the government's strong commitment to multinational tax integrity. It's important to see this in its historical and international context. No government in Australian history has done more on multinational tax fairness than the Albanese government. No government around the world is doing more to improve multinational tax integrity than Australia. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024 4984

Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024

First Reading 4984 Second Reading 4984 10:13 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of a package of three bills which together will enact a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for the multinational enterprises operating in Australia with an annual global revenue of 750 million euros (approximately A$1.2 billion) or greater. This bill specifically imposes the liability to pay top-up tax under the global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax in accordance with section 55 of the Constitution. The bill will commence on the day it receives royal assent and will apply to fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2024. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 4984

Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024

First Reading 4984 Second Reading 4984 10:15 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of a package of three bills which together will enact a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for multinational enterprises operating in Australia with an annual global revenue of 750 million euros (approximately A$1.2 billion) or greater. Schedule 1 to the bill implements consequential and miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration of the global and domestic minimum taxes in Australia, including amendments to ensure the taxes interact appropriately with existing Australian taxation laws. Specific amendments are proposed to be made to the following acts: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997; the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; the International Tax Agreements Act 1953; and the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Extensive consultation has taken place with stakeholders to inform the policy and legislative design of interactions set out in the bill's amendments. At a basic level, these amendments will not affect Australia's existing corporate income tax rate or rules, which will continue to apply to multinational enterprises operating in Australia. The global and domestic minimum taxes will only apply after the application of the income tax rules. The amendments, moreover, do not alter or weaken the application of existing Australian taxation integrity measures such as the hybrid mismatch and controlled foreign company rules. The integrity measures in our income tax law have a proven track record of success against tax planning schemes and will largely continue to apply in priority to, and separate from, the application of the global and domestic minimum taxes. However, to ensure that relief from double taxation is provided where appropriate, a credit will be available to taxpayers under foreign income tax offset rules for any top-up tax paid under a foreign jurisdiction's domestic minimum tax, subject to certain integrity safeguards. In a similar vein, the controlled foreign company rules will be amended so that they take into account top-up tax paid under a foreign jurisdiction's domestic minimum tax. Franking credits will also be available to taxpayers who pay top-up tax under Australia's domestic minimum tax, representing a corporate tax paid on domestic profits. An amendment has also been included so that Australia's bilateral tax treaties will be overridden in the event of any inconsistency between them and the application of the global minimum tax. These points aside, the amendments contained in this bill are designed to administratively accommodate the application of the global and domestic minimum taxes in Australia. The bill will commence at the same time as the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill commences, that is, the day that bill receives royal assent, with application to fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2024. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4985 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 4985 Appointment 4985 10:18 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move: That: (1) the resolution of appointment for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights be amended to replace paragraph (l)(a) with the following: (a) the committee consist of 12 members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator; and; (2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. 10:19 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The government's proposed changes to the membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights are ones that the coalition does not believe are necessary or justified, and the government has made no credible attempt to make the case for these changes. There is no groundswell of opinion in the broader Australian community that the human rights committee of this parliament needs to be expanded. There is nobody saying, 'Ten is not enough; it needs to be 12.' We've had no rationale given by this government. The idea of expanding the human rights committee was not in the bill that was introduced into this parliament. The idea of expanding the human rights committee was not considered by the committee that looked at the bill. It was not an issue addressed by government senators in the committee report on the bill. There were certainly no letter-writing campaigns or email campaigns coming into electorate offices around this country saying, 'What we need is 12 people on the parliamentary committee on human rights, not 10, because 10 can't do the job; only 12 can do the job.' Nobody sought to make that argument because such an argument would be patently ridiculous and entirely unsupported by the facts or the evidence. There is no credible policy reason for the change the government is seeking to slip through in this motion moved by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. They've made every attempt to try and disguise what's going on and they've offered no plausible, convincing, substantiated, detailed argument. Their argument is about as threadbare as you can possibly find, even from a government which has in, just two short years, established quite a track record of threadbare, hopeless, entirely unpersuasive arguments. What is the real rationale for what's going on here? Why is this a priority for the current Prime Minister? It's certainly clear from the track record of this Prime Minister that the things he's concerned about are entirely at odds with the priorities of the Australian people—bringing down the cost of your mortgage, bringing down inflation, addressing social cohesion and addressing the risk of growing antisemitism. On the contrary, what we've seen from this government is a continued willingness to pursue matters entirely at odds with the day-to-day concerns and priorities of the Australian people. We've got a weak government incapable of making the right calls, led by a weak prime minister. That weakness is reflected in the motion before the House—a motion moved by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, a motion which the government has sought to portray as simply a minor, business-as-usual matter. As it turns out, there were a lot of very sensible recommendations made by Senator Scarr in the other place. He identified a number of important improvements that could have been made. There were serious recommendations made about the rules dealing with the transfer of proceedings and the circumstances in which a transfer is 'in the interest of justice'. The bill being used by this government as the excuse to put forward this expansion of the committee was stated to be about the issue of the transfer of proceedings. The government could have used this opportunity to improve the explanation of jury preparation and jury selection processes. The government could have used this opportunity to provide better guidance around the criteria to be used by the sheriff. All these were substantive, important matters that were contained in the bill that was considered in the other place. But, rather than the government seeking to engage on those important matters, they have completely ignored those matters, and they have engaged in some Instagram level virtue-signalling; that's what we've seen here. The government could have devoted its time and energy to improving protections, to delivering substantive effective measures against forced marriage—as the coalition recommended when we looked at this bill. There are many serious and concrete improvements that the coalition identified and that we've made recommendations about, having looked at the bill—the bill which has been used by this government as the trigger and excuse to instead go in a completely different and a completely baseless direction, and that is the direction of increasing the size of this committee. This government's bold policy initiative is to add two more spots to a committee. The government tabled supplementary explanatory materials, but they do a remarkably poor job of explaining why this House ought to agree to expand this committee. There are 500 or so words in these so-called explanatory materials, and not one of them gives an adequate, persuasive, compelling or even moderately respectable explanation. Why would this be happening? Why would the government suddenly increase the size of a committee? Why would the government leap on this particular bill as the excuse to do so? Well, you don't need to be a very experienced observer of the track record and practices of this Albanese Labor government to work out what's going on. A secret deal has been cooked up between this government and members of the crossbench. This week the Prime Minister and his incompetent Attorney-General have used the human rights committee as a bargaining chip. They've engaged in some horsetrading to shore up crossbench support and to advance their political agenda. The prize that they have handed across to the crossbench is to increase the size of the human rights committee from 10 to 12, giving effect to a policy priority which no mainstream Australian has called for, which no mainstream Australian would regard as necessary. This is the advancement of concerns which are entirely political. This is a move which disrespects the committee, discredits the Attorney and discredits this government. The coalition opposes this motion. This motion should be rejected. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 AYES Albanese, A. N. 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. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. 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. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. 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. 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. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS 4987 MOTIONS Israel 4987 10:35 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Canning from moving the following motion immediately—That the House reaffirms Israel's inherent right to self-defence, whether attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other sponsor of terrorism. In November of last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was approached by Israel's ambassador, Mr Amir Maimon. Mr Maimon asked us whether we would be willing to watch the 43-minute video, or compilation of videos, that documented in very clear and brutal imagery Hamas's attack on Israel on 7 October. I was joined on the coalition side by Senator Paterson, Senator Birmingham, the member for Flinders and the member for Fisher. It was an extraordinary and excruciating 43-minute video—one of the most brutal things I have ever seen, and in my previous career I've seen quite a few videos relating to ISIS and other terrorists. We watched it because we thought it was important to stare evil in the eyes and understand exactly what transpired on that day back on 7 October. It was clear that this was religiously motivated violence against the Jewish people. It was militant Islamism, and it was very distressing to watch—very distressing indeed. We all left very moved and troubled by what we saw. But there were no surprises on that video, because many of us have engaged with the Hamas charter of 2017, which, in very clear and plain English, documents exactly what the objectives of Hamas are: to destroy the Jewish people and wipe out the state of Israel. And their main method for doing so is violence: violence is the means of expelling the Jewish people from Israel and destroying Israel itself. Last year, soon after the attacks, both chambers of this parliament passed a motion unequivocally condemning the terrorist attacks of 7 October on Israel by Hamas, including the targeting, the murder and the rape of many innocent women and children, and the taking of hostages and indiscriminate rocket fire. These attacks resulted in the biggest loss of Jewish life on a single day since the Holocaust. Hamas still holds around 120 hostages captive—120 captives who need to be freed, who desperately need to be reunited with their families and who desperately need medical care. But Hamas continues to hold and hide those hostages, just as it hides its terrorist militias and terrorist military equipment among Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure, increasing the tragic toll on innocent Palestinian people. Hamas and its supporters in Hezbollah continue to fire rockets indiscriminately at Israel, seeking to inflict maximum pain, death and damage on Israel's civilians and soldiers alike. They and their supporters—and I'm talking about Hezbollah now, in Iran—continue to call for the death of all Jews and for Israel's destruction. In our bipartisan motion last October, Australia's chambers of parliament resolutely made clear that we stand with Israel and recognise its inherent right to defend itself. We acknowledged the devastating loss of Israeli and Palestinian life, and that innocent civilians on all sides were suffering as a result of the attacks by Hamas and the subsequent conflict. We don't want to see violence, death and destruction. We want peace. But Hamas started this, and Hamas continues this by refusing to release the hostages, surrender, lay down its arms and cease to be a movement. This remains the position of the coalition, and we should never lose sight of the provocative action on 7 October that started this war. It was Hamas that started this war. It is not a legitimate political force, and it should not have a seat at the negotiating table. Now Hezbollah masses at the border to Israel's north. Since 7 October, Israel has had to deal with not only Hamas but also a steady barrage of rockets and missiles from Hezbollah to its north. Our bipartisan motion makes clear that Israel has an inherent right to defend itself against not just Hamas but also Hezbollah. Hezbollah is Iran's cat's paw in Lebanon. Like Hamas, it is a listed terrorist organisation under Australian law, and it's backed by the Iranian regime. Its motto is 'Death to Israel'. For those of you who doubt what I say, I'll read from the 1985 Hezbollah manifesto, which says: For the sake of the truth, we declare that the sons of Hezbollah's nation have come to know well their basic enemies in the area—Israel, America, France and the Phalange. Our sons are now in an ever-escalating confrontation against these enemies until the following objectives are achieved—Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration from existence and the liberation of venerable Jerusalem from the talons of occupation. These people are committed to violence and they are committed to the destruction of Israel. We need to be very clear about that. It has launched guided rockets and artillery, on 8 October last year and daily since then, and tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced for months, unable to return to their homes, which are targeted every day by terrorists. Experts have assessed Hezbollah as having a stockpile of 120,000 to 200,000 short-range guided ballistic missiles, short- and intermediate-range unguided ballistic missiles and short- and long-range unguided rockets. These people are armed to the teeth and they want to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. Hezbollah continues to violate UN Security Council resolution 1701 of August 2006 by deploying forces and firing anti-tank guided missiles and other weapons against Israel from the zone between the blue line and the Litani River, an area that the United Nations Security Council agreed should be an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and UN forces. We all wish to see, as this parliament made clear after 7 October, an end to the war in the Middle East that was started by Hamas on 7 October. This war could end tomorrow if Hamas surrendered, released the hostages and laid down its arms. This parliament stood resolutely behind Israel's right to self-defence against Hamas last year, and the government should make clear whether it still upholds Israel's right to self-defence against the murderous terrorism of Hezbollah and its supporters. Very distressingly, we've read overnight in an article in the Herald Sun written by James Campbell: Israeli Ambassador Amir Maimon was formally summoned to a meeting in Canberra 10 days ago and warned that the Jewish state could not expect Australia's support if it goes to war against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. In a sign of the deteriorating relationship between Australia and Israel, the federal government's position on a potential war in Southern Lebanon was not delivered by Foreign Minister Penny Wong, but was left to Ms Wong's underling, Assistant Minister Tim Watts. It also goes on to say that Mr Maimon's relationship with the foreign minister has been 'in the freezer' for several months and that summoning the Israeli ambassador to this House can be interpreted as a formal rebuke. The government needs to make very clear and reaffirm its position on Israel and whether or not it supports its inherent right to self-defence. The government needs to come clean on the status of its support for Israel, which has repeatedly shifted and weakened, despite terrorist groups still holding Israeli citizens as hostages and continuing to seek the destruction of Israel. If this meeting did take place, as reported, then the Prime Minister and the foreign minister need to explain why they didn't front up to tell Israel themselves and why they sent the assistant foreign minister. We on this side believe that Israel has an inherent right to self-defence. Absolutely and unequivocally, Israel has a right to self-defence. We go back to the United Nations Charter, article 51, which says: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations … Israel has sustained countless armed attacks since 7 October from both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is why this meeting 10 days ago is so troubling. Why is the government shifting its position on this very basic and fundamental right of every nation to self-defence? This is a weak government which is weak on self-defence, and they are weakening their position with one of our closest and most long-term democratic partners and allies in the Middle East. In fact, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. We have many people links; we have many military ties; we have many political ties. This is inexplicable, and the Prime Minister needs to come to this chamber and the foreign minister to the Senate to explain why they have taken such a weak position with regard to Israel's self-defence. It's shameful, if true, and they need to come clean and explain their position. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? 10:45 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I second the motion. It's crucial that we suspend standing orders and have this debate to understand the position of the government and this parliament. A bipartisan motion last October in this House made it clear that we stand with Israel and recognise its inherent right to defend itself. We need to know today whether this government still believes that after those concerning reports that the member for Canning talked about. It's crucial that we know that because we need to show our commitment to the Jewish community here in Australia and our friends and allies in Israel. I want to pay tribute to the member for Berowra who has carried a heavy load since 7 October on behalf of many in his community. The member for Macnamara has as well on the other side. Many people have. Motions like this are important to the Jewish community. They are seeing the most fundamental attack on who they are since 7 October. We have seen a rise in antisemitism that is unprecedented since World War II. We need to stand strong and send a message to our allies in Israel and our friends in the Jewish community here in Australia that we stand with them; we support them, and we support the Israeli nation to self-defend against a terrorist organisation. This is how simple this motion is. It says: That the House reaffirms Israel's inherent right to self-defence, whether attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other sponsor of terrorism. That is what we want to debate and vote on today. It'll be interesting to see whether the government does suspend standing and sessional orders to allow us to have that debate, because it is very concerning to see these reports that the Israeli ambassador was hauled before the assistant minister. It feels very much like they're hauling the Israeli ambassador before the government. I know those in our armed services would have liked them to be that strong when the CCP was engaging in dangerous military tactics against our army. It's a question for the Prime Minister and the foreign minister: why are they holding the Israeli army, the Israeli nation and the Israeli ambassador to a higher standard than the CCP? It is a question they need to answer. Let's be very clear. Hezbollah is a listed terrorist organisation in Australia. The UN Security Council resolution 1701, passed in 2006, says that southern Lebanon, below the Litani River, should be a demilitarised zone, but this is exactly where Hezbollah is operating from and attacking Israel. The charter of the United Nations, chapter 7, article 51, says: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations … We know, the world knows and the Australian government knows that since 7 October, Hezbollah has been attacking northern Israel, forcing many Israelis to flee their homes. Yet they haul the ambassador—our friend and ally—in and tell him that we won't support them, that we will not be there to support the Israeli people and a democratic nation from attacks. The question is: why is the Albanese government walking away from our democratic friends and partners? Suspending standing and sessional orders is crucial because, right now, our parliament is being protested and there are antisemitic signs being put up at the front of this place—as we speak. There is no more important motion to discuss right now than showing our support in this House, on all sides, for the democratically elected Israeli nation. There are antisemitic signs being hung in front of the parliament, the heart of democracy in Australia, right now. If this government are not prepared to debate this and show their support for the Israeli people then they stand condemned and it is another sign of a prime minister that is weak and trying to play both sides of the fence. 10:51 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.    

The House divided. [10:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 73 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. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. 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. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 61 NOES 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) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

 BILLS 4991 BILLS Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 4991

Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024

Consideration in Detail 4991 11:01 The SPEAKER 53517 We're dealing with the consideration in detail regarding the member for North Sydney's amendments (1) to (16). The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to. 11:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Just to finalise the government's response to the amendments moved by the member for North Sydney previously when we were discussing this issue, as I said in those comments, I very much respect the intent of the member's amendments, and I certainly will continue to work with the member and other members of the crossbench on this legislation. The final issue that the member raised that I wanted to address was her amendment relating to the publishing of advice that the CEO of Environment Protection Australia may appoint an advisory group. The legislation that we are proposing already says that the CEO of Environment Protection Australia may publish the advice from the advisory group or one or more of its members on the Environment Protection Australia website where it's appropriate to do so. This supports transparency, but it also balances considerations that there is some information that the advisory group may have that is not appropriate to make public. I wanted to give the House a couple of examples of this. It may be, for example, that Environment Protection Australia is making a decision that relates to a parcel of land where there are threatened species. There may be the last few examples of a threatened plant. That is very attractive to plant collectors if they know the exact location. Members would be very well aware of the finding some decades ago of the Wollemi pine, which, of course, is a tree that was common 91 million years ago. It's commonly referred to as a 'dinosaur plant'. They were thought to have become extinct about two million years ago, until an off-duty national parks staff member found some—a tiny stand of them. Since that time, there has been every effort made to propagate these plants—you can buy them, of course—but also to translocate them to other, secret locations in the hope that they may grow again in the future. The original stand of Wollemi pines has been infected by a pathogen—phytophthora root rot—because it seems someone who thought they were doing absolutely no harm went with no malice to visit the location of these Wollemi pines, and now these trees that had survived for millions of years are actually in danger of dying of root rot. They can treat the symptoms, but they can't eliminate the pathogen. There are other examples, like the 40 million-year-old Springbrook leatherwood trees in South-East Queensland. There are a tiny a number of them in a tiny part of a national park in South-East Queensland. People being able to locate these last remaining examples of threatened species would be a real problem. The other example, of course, is there may be advice from traditional owners. Traditional owners have every right to control the information that they provide to Environment Protection Australia. It is an absolutely fundamental premise and tenet of our environmental law reforms that, where traditional owners provide information about the lands that they are responsible for, they have control of that information. I should also say that the advisory group will comprise a variety of members. They won't function by consensus. You might have advice from an engineer and an ecologist that give you different perspectives on a decision. We won't be getting one piece of advice from the advisory group that then goes to Environment Protection Australia. The CEO of the EPA will be entitled to take different advice or different perspectives from the different experts that they have, so that may also limit the advice that the experts are prepared to give. 11:06 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I want to thank the minister for her response just then to the amendments that I moved yesterday. I just want to pick up on a few of the things in the minister's answer to me. The amendments that were moved were moved in consultation with a number of people that are already incredibly active when it comes to having a very clear sense of goodwill vested in seeing the absolute strongest version of an environmental protection agency established here in Australia. I think at the heart of it, as the minister, her team and I have discussed, there is a very real concern that the recognition of obligation to community does not lie in the primary piece of legislation. Beyond that, access to and the publication of information—responding to what we just heard from the minister—that has been used to make a decision is an essential component of people being able to understand what has helped an organisation come to their final point. In my original speech, I actually referenced a project that's taking place very near my home in Coonabarabran, in the Pilliga forest, the largest native forest west of the Blue Mountains. When that project was first announced to the community and the process was opened, they received 23,000 submissions on that proposal, and close to 95 per cent of those submissions were against that project. Yet, when the project was approved, there were only five paragraphs in the final report even referencing those submissions. So my response to what we've just heard from the minister, while I absolutely respect everything she has offered in terms of the importance of not providing information because you wish to protect species or the location of sites, is that it's not the absence of that information that the people I've spoken to are concerned about; it's actually the absence of the arguments when a decision has been made to proceed with a project. People really want to understand how we can have a case where 23,000 submissions were made and over 90 per cent said, 'No, we don't want this to proceed,' and yet the project still went ahead. I think there is still room within this legislation to improve that. I really respectfully request that the minister and her team look at that as part of the bill. You can still retain information. You can do that on the grounds that we could introduce subsets here that say 'information retained due to protective nature of species' or 'information retained due to respect for traditional custodians'. But to just say we can't provide it all because we may end up accidentally giving good information away, I think, provides a really big shield for the bad information that community is concerned about. Ultimately, proponents will go looking for it, and proponents will try and elevate up over the top of any other advocacy groups. I apologise if the minister touched on this yesterday, but I just want to come back to it. We know at the moment that all of the state EPAs have a charter when it comes to their operations. Really, I thought it was quite significant that there is no charter for the federal EPA. I wondered if the minister could help me understand why there's this break with what seems to be fairly standard practice between the two levels. 11:10 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for North Sydney. Just on the second question first, the way that we are handling the description of the expectations of Environment Protection Australia is that I will write to the CEO of Environment Protection Australia with a statement of expectations, as the minister. That will be a public document. The CEO of Environment Protection Australia will respond with a statement of intent. That will also be a public document. I will make it very clear as minister. Any subsequent minister will write their own statement of expectations, and the EPA CEO will then respond with how they will properly discharge those expectations. I would also draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that transparency is an object of the act. The CEO can publish as much information as the CEO wishes to publish. Of course, regarding the issue that she's raised on community consultation, we will have a national standard on community consultation that will describe the expectations of community consultation, because I do understand how very important it is for local communities to have the opportunity, a proper opportunity, to make their views known about a proposed project. Quite often, what happens in these instances is that we get very large numbers of people signing a form letter. So it can be that you have many thousands of people responding to a proposed project, but the information provided in those responses isn't always unique information 23,000 times. It can be quite similar information provided a number of times. 11:13 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I promise this is my final question. Again, I acknowledge that the minister, her team and I have had this conversation, and again I would appeal that this be considered as this legislation goes to the Senate. The challenge of separating this bill, which I consider and many consider to be the primary piece of legislation, from the national standard when it comes to community consultation is that we have no line of sight on when we will see that national standard of community consultation. So the principle of reflecting that obligation to community engagement—the legislation makes it pretty clear that there is an obligation to proponents. I think that there is still an opportunity to strengthen this legislation by bringing that same responsibility into what I would call the head legislation, as opposed to leaving it to the national standards, particularly given that we don't have a line of sight on when those national standards will come—and, in a worst-case scenario, they never come. I just wanted to put that on record. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.    

The House divided. [11:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 40 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:22 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar by leave—I move amendments (1) to (35), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 20), after "Australia,", insert "establishes the Board of EPA". (3) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 20), after "the CEO of EPA.", insert: The Board's functions include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions. (4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 2), omit "the CEO and". (5) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 3 to 5), omit "the CEO's independence by directing the CEO in the performance or exercise of the CEO's functions or powers", substitute "the Board's or the CEO's independence by directing them in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers". (6) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 17), after the definition of advisory group, insert: Board: see section 11A. Board member means a member of the Board and includes the Chair. (7) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of CEO, insert: Chair: see subsection 11D(5). Deputy Chair: see subsection 11D(5). (8) Clause 5, page 3 (before line 29), before paragraph (a) of the definition of entrusted person, insert: (aa) a Board member; or (9) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of entrusted person, substitute: (d) a person engaged under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the Board under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the Board's functions or the CEO's functions; or (10) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 14), after the definition of EPA, insert: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Indigenous person means a person who is: (a) a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia; or (b) a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. (11) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 3 to 7), omit the clause, substitute: 8 Simplified outline of this Part This Part establishes the Board of EPA and the office of the CEO of EPA. It also establishes EPA for the purposes of assisting the Board and the CEO in the performance of their functions. The Board is the accountable authority of EPA. (12) Clause 9, page 7 (line 8), omit "CEO", substitute "Board". (13) Clause 9, page 7 (before line 10), before subparagraph (2)(c)(i), insert: (ia) the Board members; (14) Clause 9, page 7 (after line 15), after subparagraph (2)(d)(i), insert: (ia) the functions of the Board referred to in section 11B; and (15) Clause 10, page 7 (before line 19), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the Board; and (16) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 23 to 25), omit the clause, substitute: 11 Function of EPA The function of EPA is to assist the Board and the CEO in the performance of their functions. (17) Page 7 (after line 25), after Division 2, insert: Division 2A — The Board Subdivision A — Establishment and functions 11A Establishment The EPA Board is established by this section. 11B Functions of the Board (1) The Board has the following functions: (a) to appoint the CEO; (b) to monitor, assess and report on the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions; (c) to ensure that the CEO performs the CEO's functions consistently with the object of this Act; (d) to determine the policies and long-term strategic plans of EPA, and of the CEO in relation to the performance of the CEO's functions, including policies and plans relating to organisational governance and risk management; (e) to determine what proportion of EPA's budget should be spent on monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance; (f) to advise the CEO on any matter relating to the protection of the environment or relating to the object of this Act (at the CEO's request or on the Board's own initiative). (2) The Board must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, give the Minister a written report that: (a) assesses the success of the CEO in performing the CEO's functions during the financial year in an accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent manner; and (b) assesses the success of the CEO in facilitating the achievement of nature positive (within the meaning of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Act 2024) during the financial year; and (c) includes any recommendations made under or in relation to paragraphs (1)(b) to (e) or paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection; and (d) addresses any other matters prescribed by the rules. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of each report given under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives it. (4) The Board has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions. Subdivision B — Membership and appointment 11C Membership of the Board (1) The Board consists of the following members: (a) the Chair; (b) the Deputy Chair; (c) not fewer than 5, and not more than 7, other members. (2) The performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Board is not affected by reason only of paragraph (1)(c) not being complied with for a period of not more than 6 months. 11D Appointment (1) The Board members are to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument. (2) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the person has substantial experience or knowledge, and significant standing, in one or more of the following: (i) environmental regulation; (ii) conservation of biodiversity; (iii) ecological sustainable development; (iv) heritage; (v) Indigenous affairs; (vi) law; (vii) natural resource management; (viii) any other field prescribed by the rules; and (b) the person does not have any interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Board's functions; and (c) at least 1 Board member is an Indigenous person. (3) A person must not be appointed as a Board member under this section unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of the selection criteria for the position for at least 10 consecutive days; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates. (4) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (3)(a)(iii)) to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (5) The Minister must, by written instrument, appoint: (a) one of the Board members to be the Chair; and (b) another of the Board members to be the Deputy Chair. (6) An appointment of the person as the Chair or Deputy Chair ceases if the person's appointment as a Board member ceases. 11E Term of appointment (1) A Board member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 6 years. Note: A Board member may be reappointed: see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (2) However, the period of appointment for 4 of the first set of Board members must not exceed 3 years. Note: This ensures staggered appointments. (3) A Board member holds office on a part-time basis. 11F Acting appointments Acting by operation of law (1) The Deputy Chair is to act as the Chair: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chair: (i) is absent from duty; or (ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Acting appointments (2) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a Board member to act as the Deputy Chair: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Deputy Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Deputy Chair: (i) is acting as the Chair; or (ii) is absent from duty; or (iii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (3) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a person to act as a Board member (other than the Chair or the Deputy Chair): (a) during a vacancy in the office of a Board member (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when a Board member: (i) is acting as the Deputy Chair; or (ii) is absent from duty; or (iii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Qualifications etc. of acting Board members (4) Subsections 11D(2) to (4) apply to an appointment under subsection (3) of this section in the same way as they apply to an appointment under section 11D. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 11G Remuneration (1) A Board member is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the rules. (2) A Board member is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the rules. (3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of a Board member. Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of a Board member will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)). 11H Leave (1) The Minister may grant the Chair leave of absence on the terms and conditions that the Minister determines. (2) The Chair may grant leave of absence to any other Board member on the terms and conditions that the Chair determines. (3) The Chair must notify the Minister if the Chair grants a Board member leave of absence for a period that exceeds 6 months. 11J Resignation (1) A Board member may resign the member's appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation. (2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day. 11K Termination (1) The Minister may terminate the appointment of a Board member: (a) for misconduct; or (b) if the member is unable to perform the duties of the member's office because of physical or mental incapacity. (2) The Minister must terminate the appointment of a Board member if: (a) the member: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with the member's creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of the member's remuneration for the benefit of the member's creditors; or (b) the member is absent, except on leave of absence, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Board. Note: The appointment of a Board member may also be terminated under section 30 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with terminating the appointment of an accountable authority, or a member of an accountable authority, for contravening general duties of officials). 11L Other terms and conditions A Board member holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister. Subdivision C — Procedures of the Board 11M Convening meetings (1) The Board must hold such meetings as are necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. (2) The Chair: (a) may convene a meeting at any time; and (b) must convene at least 4 meetings each calendar year; and (c) must convene a meeting within 30 days after receiving a written request to do so from: (i) a majority of the Board members; or (ii) the Minister. 11N Quorum (1) At a meeting of the Board, a quorum is constituted by a majority of the Board members. (2) However, if: (a) a Board member is required by rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 not to be present during the deliberations, or to take part in any decision, of the Board with respect to a particular matter; and (b) when the Board member leaves the meeting concerned there is no longer a quorum present; the remaining Board members constitute a quorum for the purposes of any deliberation or decision at that meeting with respect to that matter. 11P Presiding at meetings (1) The Chair must preside at all meetings of the Board at which the Chair is present. (2) If the Chair is not present at a meeting of the Board, the Deputy Chair, if present, must preside at the meeting. (3) If neither the Chair nor the Deputy Chair is present at a meeting of the Board, the other Board members present must appoint one of themselves to preside. 11Q Voting at meetings (1) A question arising at a meeting of the Board is to be determined by a majority of the votes of the Board members present and voting. (2) The person presiding at the meeting of the Board has a deliberative vote and, if the votes are equal, a casting vote. 11R Minutes The Board must keep minutes of its meetings. 11S Conduct of meetings The Board may, subject to this Subdivision, regulate proceedings at its meetings as it considers appropriate. Note: Section 33B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contains further information about the ways in which Board members may participate in meetings. 11T Decisions without meetings (1) The Board is taken to have made a decision at a meeting if: (a) without meeting, a majority of the Board members entitled to vote on the proposed decision indicate agreement with the decision; and (b) that agreement is indicated in accordance with the method determined by the Board under subsection (2); and (c) all the Board members were informed of the proposed decision, or reasonable efforts were made to inform all the Board members of the proposed decision. (2) Subsection (1) applies only if the Board: (a) has determined that it may make decisions of that kind without meeting; and (b) has determined the method by which Board members are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions. (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Board member is not entitled to vote on a proposed decision if the member would not have been entitled to vote on that proposal if the matter had been considered at a meeting of the Board. (4) The Board must keep a record of decisions made in accordance with this section. (18) Clause 14, page 9 (line 13), at the end of the clause, add: Note: The CEO's discretion is subject to the policies, plans, determinations, advice and recommendations of the Board: see section 11B. (19) Clause 15, page 10 (line 5), omit "the CEO and". (20) Clause 16, page 11 (line 6), omit "the CEO and". (21) Clause 16, page 11 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) A statement of expectations cannot direct the Board or the CEO in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers. (22) Clause 44, page 23 (lines 3 to 25), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute: Appointment by the Board (1) The CEO is to be appointed by the Board by written instrument. Qualifications for appointment (2) A person must not be appointed as the CEO unless the Board is satisfied that: (a) the person has substantial experience or knowledge, and significant standing, in one or more of the following: (i) environmental regulation; (ii) conservation of biodiversity; (iii) ecological sustainable development; (iv) any other field prescribed by the rules; and (b) the person does not have any interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the CEO's functions. (2A) A person must not be appointed as the CEO under this section unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of the selection criteria for the position for at least 10 consecutive days; and (ii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the Board to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates. (2B) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as the CEO, the Board must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (2A)(a)(iii)) to be published on EPA's website. (23) Clause 45, page 24 (line 4), omit "Minister", substitute "Board". (24) Clause 46, page 24 (line 19), omit "Minister", substitute "Board". (25) Clause 48, page 25 (line 5), omit "Minister", substitute "Board". (26) Clause 48, page 25 (line 7), omit "Minister", substitute "Board". (27) Clause 49, page 25 (line 10), omit "Minister's", substitute "Board's". (28) Clause 50, page 25 (line 13), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board". (29) Clause 50, page 25 (line 15), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board". (30) Clause 51, page 25 (line 18), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board". (31) Clause 51, page 26 (line 3), omit "Minister's", substitute "Board's". (32) Page 30 (after line 4), after clause 57, insert: 57A Delegation by the Board (1) The Board may, in writing, delegate any of the Board's functions or powers (other than a function or power in Part 5) to: (a) a member of the staff referred to in section 52; or (b) a person whose services are made available to EPA under section 53; or (c) an individual engaged, or an individual employed or engaged by a person engaged, under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the Board under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the Board's functions. Note: Sections 34AA to 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contain provisions relating to delegations. (2) However, the Board must not delegate a function or power under subsection (1) to a person unless the person: (a) is an SES employee or acting SES employee; or (b) holds, or is acting in, a position that is equivalent to a position occupied by an SES employee; or (c) holds, or is acting in, an Executive Level 1 or 2, or equivalent, position. Note: The expressions SES employee and acting SES employee are defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (3) In performing a delegated function or exercising a delegated power, the delegate must comply with any written directions of the Board. (33) Clause 58, page 30 (line 15), omit "CEO", substitute "Board". (34) Clause 60, page 32 (line 4), omit "the CEO and EPA have", substitute "EPA has". (35) Clause 60, page 32 (line 21), before "the CEO", insert "the Board and". For two years now I've been standing up in this place, highlighting the need for a greater level of independence in major Commonwealth appointments. At the last election, my constituents in Mackellar and people Australia-wide demanded that their government act with greater integrity, transparency and accountability. The government established the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is a really positive development, but that commission is only a small part of the integrity infrastructure that needs fixing and building in this country. After all, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is a last resort for corrupt conduct. You don't need to be a doctor to understand that prevention is better than cure and we need to build our institutions from the ground up with the systems in place to ensure that they can be trusted and that ethical conduct is the norm. I've introduced my 'ending jobs for mates' private member's bill to establish a framework for independent recruitment and appointments for major Commonwealth positions. Since then, I've sought to amend just about every government bill which dealt with such appointments, from the safeguard mechanism legislation to Jobs and Skills Australia to the National Reconstruction Fund and the new Administrative Review Tribunal. To his credit, the Attorney-General understood the problem with the appointments process in the Administrative Review Tribunal and amended the legislation to make it mandatory for tribunal members to be appointed using an independent selection panel. This means that there is a precedent for new bodies to be set up in this way by the government, so I urge the environment minister to set up Environment Protection Australia in the same way from the outset. If we are going to set it up, let's do it properly from the start. My amendments to the legislation are simple and are in line with what the environmental community and integrity organisations have been calling for. Simply put, my amendments create an independent board to sit above the EPA, like so many other organisations have. This board would oversee the functions of the EPA and, importantly, select the CEO. The board's functions would include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance. The board would have up to seven members, each with substantial experience and knowledge and significant standing in an area relevant to the EPA's functions. At least one board member must be an Indigenous person. Critically, the board would be appointed through a robust and independent selection process, one which all Australians would be familiar with from their experience of getting a job and would absolutely expect to be in place for positions as important as these. The selection process would require public advertising of board positions, assessment of application against selection criteria, and an independent panel to conduct the interviews and shortlist three candidates for each position for the minister's final decision. The minister would also decide which board member is selected as chair. It is really a very simple process, and a process which incorporates independent selection so that the public can trust this process and ministerial discretion so that they have the final say, thus ensuring workability. Most environment protection agencies in the states and territories around the country have an independent board, and I have heard no adequate explanation for why this, the most important of these boards, does not have an independent board. It is, after all, the agency which has the best shot, to use the minister's own words, in turning the tide in this country from nature destruction to nature repair. I look forward to hearing from the minister to explain to the Australian public why Environment Protection Australia should not be established in this most robust way. 11:27 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin On many occasions, I've reiterated how supportive I am of an independent federal EPA, appropriately funded. Assessments and decision-making must follow an independent and transparent process. The EPA bill before this House anticipates the new EPA CEO will be appointed on direct recommendation of the minister or government. I agree with the member for Mackellar that it would be preferable for this appointment to be transparently made by an independent board: a board that's completely independent of government, management and stakeholder groups; a board that will ensure the CEO is performing their functions in an accountable, efficient, transparent and outcomes focused manner. This is good governance, and it's not a surprise that this was the model proposed by many experts during the consultation process. Ensuring the board has members with substantial expertise in matters of environmental regulation, conservation, biodiversity or ecologically sustainable developmental heritage or Indigenous affairs will mean that the board's appropriately constituted to both appoint and effectively assess the performance of the CEO and can understand the administration and operation of the legislative functions and powers of the EPA. This is just good governance. I urge the government to accept these amendments. I support the proposed amendments moved by the member for Mackellar to the EPA bill and the establishment and functions of a board and related provisions. 11:28 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I again want to really thank the member for Mackellar for her amendments. I won't be supporting these amendments, but I do really want to acknowledge the spirit and the intent behind the amendments. I certainly agree that it is important that we have a robust and independent Environment Protection Agency. That's why we are setting up the EPA to be an independent statutory body. The reason we're doing this legislation in two tranches—which Professor Graeme Samuel has said is a very sensible way to proceed—is that we want the organisation up and running, the staff ready to go and all the rest of it before they're administering the new laws. I think the idea that a new organisation—still getting the business cards printed—could administer a whole lot of new laws at the same time is a recipe for all sorts of confusion. So we have brought this legislation forward to deliver accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent decision-making. In my view, the proposed government's arrangements for Environment Protection Australia strike the right balance between enabling independence from the minister and the government of the day while ensuring that Environment Protection Australia does not become a separate legal entity to the Commonwealth, as is the case with corporate Commonwealth entities. Environment Protection Australia will have its own budget, separate from the department of the environment et cetera. It will publish its own annual reports. It won't be able to be directed by the secretary of my department and it can't be directed by me, other than by the general direction that I give through my statement of expectations and the statement of intent that the CEO of the EPA responds with. This is a very big change from the current situation. Currently, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is completely regulated by my department. The regulator reports to the secretary of my department and to me; there is no independence there. At the same time, I think we do need to have a model which recognises that decision-making will continue to be shared between Environment Protection Australia and the minister. Under the current law, Environment Protection Australia will make certain decisions as the delegate of the minister and the minister will continue to have some role, even under our new laws. This relationship between Environment Protection Australia and the minister in decision-making is one of the issues that has been most contested during the law reform process. The honourable member has spoken about the view of environmental organisations, and I understand the view of the environmental organisations. What we're trying to do with these new laws is both to improve environmental protection and also to give faster, clearer decisions to business. We're trying to balance these two imperatives because while we know that our environment is in trouble and that we need to better look after it, we also need to continue to be able to build housing, roads, transmission lines, solar farms and all the rest of it. Many people want no decision-making role for the EPA and some want no role for the minister. We're trying to balance these two things, and I believe that we have the balance right, currently, with Environment Protection Australia. We'll continue to discuss the balance of these decision-making responsibilities as part of stage 3 of the reforms. And, of course, we'll have the opportunity to examine those laws when they're released as an exposure draft, so members will have an opportunity, once again, of letting us know whether they believe that balance is right at that time. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.    

The House divided. [11:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 31 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Kearney, G. M. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:39 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I move amendments (1) and (4) to (9) on the sheet revised 27 June 2024, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 13 to 17), omit the clause, substitute: 3 Object (1) The object of this Act is to establish a national environmental regulator, the Chief Executive Officer of Environment Protection Australia, in order to: (a) enhance the protection of Australia's environment; and (b) prevent the degradation of Australia's environment and reduce risks to human health; and (c) deliver accountable, efficient, outcome-focused, transparent and informed environmental regulatory decision-making, and as a result promote public trust in that decision-making; and (d) deliver proportionate and effective risk-based compliance and enforcement responses, using data and information, including providing assurance that environmental outcomes are being met. (2) Paragraph (1)(c) includes decision-making informed by persons who are: (a) members of the Aboriginal race of Australia; or (b) descendants of Indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands. (4) Page 9 (after line 8), after clause 13, insert: 13A Duties of the CEO The CEO has the following duties when performing the CEO's functions: (a) to act consistently with the object of this Act (see paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (d)); (b) to follow principles of ecologically sustainable development; (c) to act consistently with the human right to a healthy environment for all. (5) Clause 15, page 10 (line 9), after "registrable decisions)", insert ", offsets relating to approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999". (6) Clause 16, page 11 (before line 10), before paragraph (3)(a), insert: (aa) ensure that the statement is consistent with the object of this Act (see paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (d)) and with the CEO's duties set out in section 13A; and (7) Clause 17, page 11 (before line 24), before paragraph (2)(a), insert: (aa) ensure that the statement is consistent with the object of this Act (see paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (d)) and with the CEO's duties set out in section 13A; and (8) Clause 18, page 13 (after line 4), after paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) a register of offsets relating to approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including details of the following for each offset: (i) the species affected by the offset; (ii) the agreements relating to the offset; (iii) the specific offset project, including its geographical location. (9) Page 13 (after line 23), after clause 20, insert: 20A Register of offsets The rules may make provision in relation to the register of offsets mentioned in paragraph 18(1)(aa), including (without limitation) the information in relation to each offset that the CEO must publish on the register. Note 1: The rules may, for example, prescribe that the CEO must publish the name of a person with a particular connection to the offset. Note 2: The CEO is not required to publish certain sensitive information: see section 23. We must start to acknowledge that our environmental laws are broken and that these bills, while a welcome step, will do little to fix them. This is tranche 2 of the reforms from the minister. Tranche 1 included a water trigger and was passed late last year. It was great to legislate it, but unfortunately it is completely ineffective if it is not actually used. I should say to the minister that, as we consider these amendments and this bill and consider whether it will be effective in improving environmental protection, we do look to past conduct. The problem is, in relation to, for example, the Tamboran and Beetaloo gas projects, a number of us have written to the minister asking her to use those new powers under tranche 1 of the reform to recall that project in to be assessed in relation to its water use. Unfortunately, earlier this week we received a letter from the minister really stating unsatisfactory excuses as to why this gas project remains unreferred under the EPBC Act despite grave concerns and the past history by this proponent of being fined for dumping wastewater. So it begs a question. These legislations before us will not have the effect that is stated unless they are robust, they are utilised and the intent is in fact very clear and specific. As I understand it, regarding all of the amendments and the discussions that have been had with the minister and her team, while I am very thankful for the opportunity to do that, the difficulty is it does not appear that there is any willingness to actually accept any amendments that are all here and are reasonable to ensure better legislation. The amendments that I'm moving now are absolutely reasonable and sensible. In fact, some were even included in the minister's and the government's own nature positive consultation documents but later dropped. In particular, they introduced clear objects and duties to ensure the duties of the EPA formed under this legislation and with the minister can achieve, amongst other things, the enhancement of the Australian environment. We need to be specific about the objects of this legislation and the EPA formed under this legislation. This amendment provides greater transparency and accountability for offsets to ensure proponents are not double-counting offsets, as was reported just recently in the media. The amendments include providing more detailed objects to the Environment Protection Australia bill, linking those objects to the EPA's duties and any ministerial statement of expectations and minister's statement of intent. My concern is that, as the legislation is currently drafted, without being explicit in the legislation we will have different ministers who can then make vastly different statements of expectations and statements of intent, which very much lower the bar when it comes to the expectations of how this EPA will work. Objects and duties guide the EPA in its activities and assist decision-making, and they actually make it arm's length from that political intervention, so it is really important for it to be specific in the legislation. It also keeps the EPA accountable to delivering the outcomes that this legislation seeks to achieve. It is one of the key mechanisms in which decisions can be reviewed by the courts to ensure they are consistent with the objects of the legislation. I note the minister in my discussions flagged potential legal complexities regarding having objects in this way, but the EPA equivalents in states such as New South Wales and Victoria still contain quite comprehensive objects within their EPA legislation while discharging responsibilities relating to many other environmental laws that also have their own objects. I should say that I did a search of all the laws that this EPA would essentially enact, and not all have detailed objects, so there are gaps that need to be addressed. The minister's own press release on the tranche 2 reforms also recognised the concerning results of an offsets audit and the need to urgently strengthen the enforcement of offsets. Yesterday, the media reported that the department's audit of 20 offset sites showed that 30 per cent of sites had worse conditions than the offsets plan and that two sites overlapped with existing offset sites. So I'm also moving an amendment to include an additional register of offsets to avoid this overlap. This will provide greater transparency about where offsets have been secured and which offsets have been secured and that they're continuing in perpetuity. I also wholly support the amendments moved by the member for North Sydney to improve transparency through documentation having to be registered and through definitions. It's important that communities can see the reasoning of the decision-making body and that there's transparency around that—not just a duty to the proponent of an application but also that it states that duty to communities. I note that further amendments must be made in tranche 3, and we have been promised that those are coming, especially around offsets and like-for-like— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Honourable member, you have gone over time. Would you like to continue? Do you seek continuation? Ms STEGGALL 175696 Yes, thank you. I welcome the establishment of the EPA to bring independence and rigour to a system that we all acknowledge is broken. There's no doubt about that; we need a strong cop on the beat. But that cop, Environment Protection Australia, will only be able to do what the powers in this legislation and the objects set out in it allow. That's why it's so important for them to be specific and to be included. I should say that this was, as I've said already, in the minister's and the department's own initial consultation process and document. I'm concerned that the minister has lost the opportunity to reach the full potential of the EPA by failing to adopt these and the other amendments proposed by members of the crossbench. 11:46 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Warringah for moving these amendments. I know that her constituents place a very high value on the natural environment—they live in a beautiful part of Australia and really want us all to look after our environment better. I also believe that her constituents would very much support the setting up of Australia's first national independent environment protection agency. But we're not going to support these amendments, and I have already outlined some of the reasons for that: they complement some of the amendments that have been moved by other speakers. This act sets up Environment Protection Australia. On the environmental objectives that the member has asked for—the objectives for the act, as she alluded to—my response to her has already been that these objectives exist in the acts that the Environment Protection Agency administers. I will give an example. In her amendments, the member for Warringah seeks to include an objective that EPA should enhance the protection of Australia's environment and prevent the degradation of Australia's environment. Environment Protection Australia is being set up to administer a number of acts, and just one of them is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The objects of this act include: (a) to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance; and …   …   … (c) to promote the conservation of biodiversity; and (ca) to provide for the protection and conservation of heritage; and (d) to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous peoples; and (e) to assist in the co-operative implementation of Australia's international environmental responsibilities; and (f) to recognise the role of indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity; and (g) to promote the use of indigenous peoples' knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of, and in co-operation with, the owners of the knowledge. I think that including objects that enhance the protection of Australia's environment when the acts that are being administered by the organisation already provide for the protection of the environment and promote the conservation of biodiversity makes this inclusion redundant. As I said, the EPA will not just be regulating the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and approvals under that. It will also, for example, regulate approvals under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act. Those objectives include more specific things like giving effect to Australia's obligations under the Vienna convention and the Montreal protocol and replacing depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. I'm very happy to continue to work with the crossbench on how the objectives of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act can be meaningfully improved in stage 3 of the reforms. But the purpose of this bill is to set up the agency as an administrative act. We need to do it in a considered and methodical way. On the issue of the offsets register, this amendment is unnecessary because I've done it already. The member alluded to a review of offsets done by the department. I commissioned that review, and I commissioned that review because I was worried about offsets. I'm hearing the same stuff you are, so I asked the department to look at offsets and to evaluate whether they had been properly delivered. As the member said, in many cases they had not been properly delivered. What I've done is set up a register that anyone can look up online. You can look at the name. You can look at the location of the site. You can find the offset conditions for each project. This is just one of the changes that I've asked for as a result of the review that I commissioned. We've basically set up a permanent compliance unit to look at offsets, because I've got the same concerns as the concerns that you've raised. We found, as the member said, that one in seven approved projects were potentially noncompliant. Twenty-one of them have already been subject to compliance actions, including either a request to fix their offsets or being issued with an infringement notice. I want to go in continuation, if that's possible. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The minister is seeking a continuation. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Thank you. As I said, 21 projects have been subject to compliance actions. Nine infringement notices have been paid already. Three directed variations have been issued. I just want to reassure the member—who I think is raising very valid concerns about offsets—that now that I've established that register, that we've set up the compliance unit and that we've taken compliance action I believe that means we don't need to change the law here. We need to, as she said herself, make sure that we're putting the law into practice. Question negatived. 11:53 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 13), at the end of the clause, add: The Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Environment is established to monitor the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions, and for related matters. (2) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 14), after the definition of EPA, insert: joint committee means the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Environment established under Part 5A. joint committee member means a member of the joint committee. (3) Clause 44, page 23 (after line 25), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) A person must not be appointed as the CEO unless: (a) the Minister has referred the proposed appointment to the joint committee for approval; and (b) the joint committee has approved the proposed appointment. (4) Page 29 (after line 17), after Part 5, insert: Part 5A — Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Environment 56A Simplified outline of this Part This Part establishes the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Environment to monitor the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions, and for related matters. 56B Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Environment (1) A Committee to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Environment is to be established as soon as practicable after the commencement of each Parliament. (2) The joint committee is to consist of 12 members: (a) 6 of whom must be members of the Senate appointed by the Senate, and 6 of whom must be members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House; and (b) 5 of whom must be members of the Government; and (c) 5 of whom must be members of the Opposition; and (d) 2 of whom must be members of the Parliament other than members of the Government or Opposition. (3) The co-Chairs of the joint committee are to be: (a) the joint committee member nominated as co-Chair by the Prime Minister; and (b) the joint committee member nominated as co-Chair by the leader of the Opposition. (4) A member of the Parliament is not eligible for appointment as a joint committee member if the member is: (a) a Minister; or (b) the President of the Senate; or (c) the Speaker of the House of Representatives; or (d) the Deputy President and Chair of Committees of the Senate or the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. (5) A joint committee member ceases to hold office: (a) when the House of Representatives expires by the passing of time or is dissolved; or (b) if the joint committee member becomes the holder of an office specified in any of the paragraphs of subsection (4); or (c) if the joint committee member ceases to be a member of the House of the Parliament by which the joint committee member was appointed; or (d) if the joint committee member resigns the member's office as provided by subsection (6) or (7). (6) A joint committee member appointed by the Senate may resign the member's office by giving a signed notice to that effect to the President of the Senate. (7) A joint committee member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign the member's office by giving a signed notice to that effect to the Speaker of that House. (8) Either House of the Parliament may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy amongst the members of the joint committee appointed by that House. 56C Powers and proceedings of the joint committee All matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the joint committee are to be determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. 56D Functions of the joint committee (1) The functions of the joint committee are as follows: (a) to monitor the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions; (b) to report to both Houses of the Parliament, with such comments as it thinks fit, on any matter connected with the performance of the CEO's functions that the joint committee considers should be directed to the attention of the Parliament; (c) to examine each annual report prepared by the CEO under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and report to both Houses of the Parliament on any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such annual report; (d) to inquire into any question in connection with the joint committee's functions that is referred to it by either House of the Parliament, and to report to that House on that question; (e) to consider proposed appointments to the office of CEO (see subsection 44(2A)); (f) to make recommendations to both Houses of the Parliament, the Minister and the CEO on: (i) draft estimates referred to in section 56E; and (ii) what proportion of the EPA's budget should be spent on monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance; (g) to conduct reviews and make recommendations under section 56F; (h) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of the above functions. (2) Subsection (1) does not authorise the joint committee to reconsider the CEO's decisions or recommendations in relation to a particular decision under a Commonwealth environmental law. 56E Estimates (1) Without limiting section 56D, the joint committee may request the CEO to submit to the joint committee draft estimates for the EPA for a financial year before the Federal Budget for that financial year. (2) The CEO must comply with the request in time to allow the joint committee to consider the draft estimates and make recommendations on them before the Budget. 56F Review of Commonwealth environmental laws The joint committee must: (a) regularly review Commonwealth environmental laws; and (b) if the joint committee reasonably believes that the purposes of those laws would be better achieved if any functions under those laws were transferred to the CEO—recommend to both Houses of the Parliament and the Minister that the functions be transferred to the CEO. I am concerned that what the government is asking the House to sign when it comes to the Nature Positive Plan is a blank cheque, and that is what this amendment is designed, in part, to address. I want to impress on the House and Australians taking note of this debate that the government has been made absolutely and explicitly aware of the deficiencies in this legislation. I often bring my concerns about policy directly to the government, and, in certain circumstances, they are responsive to amendments proposed by myself and other members of the crossbench. Indeed, this is what the crossbench has tried to do with amendments to this legislation. I want to be clear that I absolutely believe that we should have a federal EPA, a good one, and my proposed amendment is an incredibly simple measure to improve the integrity and oversight of this proposed law. The crossbench has had multiple meetings with the minister and her staff on this legislation, and that is welcome and appreciated, but, in every case on nature positive, the government has refused to adapt commonsense changes from the crossbench in a series of amendments. As a result, this bill will likely end up in a quagmire of political disagreement in the Senate, and that will not be good for the social licence that must accompany this bill. This amendment goes to the oversight and the independence of the EPA. In my view, the government has decided to establish an agency which will operate like any Commonwealth agency rather than an independent authority, and this includes the ability for any future minister to shape its overarching policy direction via a statement of expectations. The project decision-making process, which is currently delegated and processed by the department of the environment, one which the minister can interfere with at any time, will simply be shifted to a new agency—no board, no expert-led appointment process and minimal operational independence. Again, the government has been made aware of this by experts, interest groups, me and others on the crossbench. To be very clear, I very much respect this minister. I'm not convinced, though, that any future minister will be equally competent. Therefore, the amendment I'm proposing would create a joint parliamentary committee on the environment which, critically, would oversee the ministerially appointed CEO. I believe this is an important step for accountability, but, alas, the government appears wary of the potential consequences of this extra democratic oversight when it comes to environmental protection. I would argue that a committee is a reasonable compromise given that the government will not implement a board to oversee what is not in reality an independent post. The concept of this amendment has received multipartisan support in recent years and is endorsed by Australia's leading environmental experts. Beyond confirming the minister's appointment of a chief executive, the committee would be empowered to request the CEO to submit draft budget estimates for review in advance of each upcoming federal budget. The CEO's performance would be monitored and reviewed in the interests of best practice environmental public administration. Absent this, absent a joint committee and absent decision-making independence, my concern is that this EPA model is a potential lame duck lacking both autonomy and integrity. This commonsense amendment would substantially improve the performance and the integrity of this bill, and it is consistent with the principles of the international nature-positive movement. Unfortunately, the government have decided not to adhere to these principles, which are at odds with the concerns that have been raised with them and the urgent threats faced by Australia's environment and, I believe, at odds with the need for a particularly robust EPA. I commend the amendments to the House. 11:57 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Goldstein for her amendments. I really do understand her very good intent here. I think all of the amendments come from absolutely the right place and the right instinct. The reason that we're not accepting these amendments is that we believe that Environment Protection Australia should be subject to all of the same forms of oversight and regulation that you would have for equivalent agencies, rather than a separate, new system. It will be subject to Audit Office requirements. It will be subject to budget estimates or review through the existing Senate environment and communications committee. It's able to have inquiries either from that committee or from select and ad hoc committees. In our system, the power to appoint the CEO should remain with the Governor-General, in our view—obviously, on the recommendation of the government. In Australia we don't have a system where parliamentary committees ratify positions in the way that they do in the United States, for example, where people are grilled by committees before they're approved, and I'm not proposing to change that. I expect there will be a Senate inquiry into this legislation, and I, of course, will consider the recommendations of that Senate inquiry when we come to debating this legislation in the Senate. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments (1) to (4) moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.    

The House divided. [12:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 36 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Charlton, A. H. G. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Jones, S. P. Laxale, J. A. A. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:05 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark by leave—I move amendments (1) to (15), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clauses 4 and 5, page 2 (line 18) to page 5 (line 19), omit the clauses, substitute: 4 Simplified outline of this Act This Act establishes EPA, short for Environment Protection Australia, and provides for the appointment of the CEO of EPA. The CEO has functions conferred on the CEO by this Act and a number of other laws (including Commonwealth environmental laws) referred to in section 10A. The CEO also has functions of advising and assisting the Minister in relation to any of the Minister's functions and powers under those laws. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Environment and Energy is established to monitor the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions, and for related matters. This Act also contains a regime for the use and disclosure of information obtained under any Act conferring functions on the CEO. There are civil penalties for the use or disclosure of protected information in certain circumstances. 5 Definitions In this Act: CEO: see section 10. civil penalty provision has the same meaning as in the Regulatory Powers Act. Commonwealth entity has the same meaning as in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Commonwealth environmental law means any of the following: (a) an environmental law (within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999); (b) the Water Act 2007; (c) an Act or legislative instrument (other than an Act or instrument specified by the rules for the purposes for this paragraph) that has, as its purpose or one of its purposes, the purpose of protecting the environment; (d) an Act specified by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph; (e) a legislative instrument (other than a legislative instrument specified by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph) made under another Commonwealth environmental law. Commonwealth reserve has the same meaning as in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. conservation zone has the same meaning as in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Deputy CEO: see section 11. enforcement body: see subsection 28(2). entrusted person means: (a) the CEO; or (b) a Deputy CEO; or (c) a member of the staff of EPA; or (d) a person engaged under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the CEO under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the CEO's functions; or (e) a person employed or engaged by a person mentioned in paragraph (d) of this definition to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the CEO's functions; or (f) any other person prescribed by the rules. environment has the same meaning as in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. environmental justice means justice and accountability in environmental matters, focusing on the respect, protection and fulfilment of environmental rights, including: (a) the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; and (b) the promotion of the environmental rule of law. EPA: see subsection 9(1). Indigenous person means a person who is: (a) a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia; or (b) a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. joint committee means the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Environment and Energy (see Part 5). joint committee member means a member of the joint committee. matter protected by a provision of Part 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has the same meaning as in that Act. official has the same meaning as in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. OMCEA: see subsection 12(1). paid work means work for financial gain or reward (whether as an employee, a self-employed person or otherwise). protected information means information of any of the following kinds obtained by an entrusted person: (a) information the disclosure of which by the entrusted person could reasonably be expected to found an action by a person (other than the Commonwealth) for breach of a duty of confidence; (b) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective working of government; (c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of one or more offences; (d) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to endanger a person's life or physical safety; (e) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of public safety or the environment. registrable decision: see section 19. Regulatory Powers Act means the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. relevant information means information obtained by an entrusted person under, or in accordance with: (a) this Act; or (b) an Act that confers functions on the CEO; or (c) the Regulatory Powers Act to the extent that it applies in relation to an Act mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b). rules means rules made under section 62. senior Deputy CEO: see subsection 10D(2). staff of EPA means the staff referred to in section 13. State or Territory government body means: (a) a Department of State of a State or Territory; or (b) an agency of a State or Territory; or (c) an authority of a State or Territory. (3) Part 2, clauses 8 to 14, page 6 (line 1) to page 9 (line 13), omit the Part, substitute: Part 2 — Environment Protection Australia Division 1 — Introduction 8 Simplified outline of this Part This Part establishes the office of the CEO of EPA. It also establishes EPA for the purposes of assisting the CEO in the performance of the CEO's functions. The CEO is the accountable authority of EPA. Division 2 — Environment Protection Australia Subdivision A — Establishment 9 Environment Protection Authority (1) Environment Protection Australia (EPA) is established by this section. (2) EPA consists of the following: (a) the CEO; (b) the Deputy CEOs; (c) the staff of EPA; (d) consultants engaged under section 13A. (2) The function of EPA is to assist the CEO in the performance of the CEO's functions. (3) The CEO has the control of the operations of EPA. (4) For the purposes of the finance law (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013): (a) EPA is a listed entity; and (b) the CEO is the accountable authority of EPA; and (c) the following persons are officials of EPA: (i) the CEO; (ii) the Deputy CEOs; (iii) the staff of EPA; (iv) consultants engaged under section 13A; (d) the purposes of EPA include: (i) the function of EPA referred to in subsection (2) of this section; and (ii) the functions of the CEO referred to in section 10A; and (iii) the functions of the OMCEA referred to in section 12. Subdivision B — Chief Executive Officer 10 Chief Executive Officer There is to be a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of EPA. 10A Functions and powers of the CEO (1) The CEO has the following functions: (a) the functions conferred on the CEO by this Act or by or under other laws of the Commonwealth; Note: Other provisions of this Act give the CEO functions involving exercising the routine administrative environmental regulatory functions of the Commonwealth, monitoring compliance with this Act and enforcing this Act. (b) the following functions relating to communities: (i) educating communities about the administration of Commonwealth environmental laws; (ii) to the extent that Commonwealth environmental laws allow for community involvement in the administration of those laws—promoting the take-up of those opportunities; (iii) increasing public confidence in the administration of Commonwealth environmental laws; (c) to advise and assist the Minister in relation to the exercise of any powers, or the performance of any functions, of the Minister under laws that confer functions on the CEO; (d) to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to opportunities to improve regulation under laws that confer functions on the CEO; (e) any functions conferred on the CEO by rules made for the purposes of this paragraph; (f) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of the above functions. (2) The CEO has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of the CEO's functions. Note: The CEO may delegate these functions and powers (see section 58). (3) In performing the CEO's functions, the CEO must act effectively, efficiently, equitably and transparently. CEO solely responsible for performing the CEO's functions (4) The Minister must not give directions to the CEO about the performance of the CEO's functions. (5) If the Minister gives a direction (whether express or implied) to the CEO contrary to subsection (4), the CEO must disregard the direction. 10B Duties of the CEO In performing the CEO's functions, the CEO has the following duties: (a) a duty to protect and improve the state of the environment and human health from the harmful effects of pollution, destruction and waste through assessment, enforcement, monitoring, reporting and standard setting; (b) a duty to promote environmental justice; (c) a duty to act consistently with the human right to a healthy environment for all; (d) a duty to implement legislation in accordance with principles of ecologically sustainable development; (e) a duty to take action to prevent and mitigate greenhouse gas pollution and take all actions necessary to reduce the impacts of climate change. 10C Appointment (1) The CEO is to be appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument. Note: The CEO may be reappointed: see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (2) The CEO holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must be 5 years. (3) The Governor-General must not appoint a person as the CEO unless: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the person qualifies for the appointment because of the person's knowledge of, or experience in, any of the following: (i) conservation of biodiversity; (ii) ecologically sustainable development; (iii) heritage; (iv) Indigenous affairs; (v) law; (vi) law enforcement; (vii) natural resource management; and (b) the Minister has referred the proposed appointment to the joint committee for approval; and (c) the joint committee has approved the proposed appointment. (4) The first person appointed as CEO must have knowledge of, or experience in, law enforcement. (5) The CEO, or at least one of the Deputy CEOs, must be an Indigenous person. This subsection has effect despite Part II of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. (6) A person is not eligible to be appointed as CEO if, at any time during the 5 years before the start of the appointment, the person was any of the following: (a) a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, of a State Parliament or of a Legislative Assembly of a Territory; (b) a person registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as political campaigner; (c) a person registered as a lobbyist (however described) under a law of a State or Territory or a foreign country; (d) a senior executive of: (i) an industry association (however described) in Australia or a foreign country; or (ii) an environmental organisation covered by section 30-55 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, or a similar environmental organisation in a foreign country; or (iii) a body corporate regulated by or under an Act referred to in section 10A of this Act. Note: Under section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and the rules made under that Act, the CEO must, in writing, disclose material personal interests that relate to the affairs of EPA to the Minister. 10D Acting CEO (1) The senior Deputy CEO acts as the CEO: (a) during a vacancy in the office of CEO (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the CEO: (i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or (ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) The senior Deputy CEO is the Deputy CEO who, out of the Deputy CEOs who are: (a) not absent from duty or from Australia; and (b) able to perform the duties of their offices; was appointed first. 10E Other paid work The CEO must not engage in paid work outside the duties of the CEO's office without the Minister's approval. 10F Remuneration (1) The CEO is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the rules. (2) The CEO is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the rules. (3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of CEO. Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of the CEO will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)). 10G Leave of absence (1) The CEO has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (2) The Minister may grant the CEO leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines. 10H Resignation (1) The CEO may resign the CEO's appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation. (2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day. 10J Termination of appointment (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the CEO: (a) for misbehaviour; or (b) if the CEO is unable to perform the duties of the CEO's office because of physical or mental incapacity. (2) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the CEO if: (a) the CEO: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with the CEO's creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of the CEO's remuneration for the benefit of the CEO's creditors; or (b) the CEO is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or (c) the CEO engages, except with the Minister's approval, in paid work outside the duties of the CEO's office (see section 10E). Note: The appointment of the CEO may also be terminated under section 30 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with terminating the appointment of an accountable authority, or a member of an accountable authority, for contravening general duties of officials). 10K Disclosure of interests to the Minister The CEO must give written notice to the Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the CEO has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the CEO's functions. 10L Terms and conditions of appointment The CEO holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister. Subdivision C — Deputy Chief Executive Officers 11 Deputy Chief Executive Officers (1) There are to be 4 Deputy Chief Executive Officers (Deputy CEOs) of EPA. (2) A Deputy CEO is to be appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument. Note: A Deputy CEO may be reappointed: see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (3) A Deputy CEO holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must be 5 years. (4) The Governor-General must not appoint a person as a Deputy CEO unless: (a) the Minister is satisfied that the person qualifies for the appointment because of the person's knowledge of, or experience in, any of the following: (i) conservation of biodiversity; (ii) ecologically sustainable development; (iii) heritage; (iv) Indigenous affairs; (v) law; (vi) law enforcement; (vii) natural resource management; and (b) the Minister has referred the proposed appointment to the joint committee for approval; and (c) the joint committee has approved the proposed appointment. (5) At least one of the first 4 Deputy CEOs must have knowledge of, or experience in, law enforcement. Note: Under subsection 10C(5), the CEO, or at least one of the Deputy CEOs, must be an Indigenous person. (6) A person is not eligible to be appointed as a Deputy CEO if, at any time during the 5 years before the start of the appointment, the person was any of the following: (a) a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, of a State Parliament or of a Legislative Assembly of a Territory; (b) a person registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as political campaigner; (c) a person registered as a lobbyist (however described) under a law of a State or Territory or a foreign country; (d) a senior executive of: (i) an industry association (however described) in Australia or a foreign country; or (ii) an environmental organisation covered by section 30-55 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, or a similar environmental organisation in a foreign country; or (iii) a body corporate regulated by or under an Act referred to in section 10A of this Act. 11A Acting appointments The CEO may, by written instrument, appoint an SES employee or acting SES employee in EPA to act as a Deputy CEO: (a) during a vacancy in the office of a Deputy CEO (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when a Deputy CEO: (i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or (ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 11B Other paid work A Deputy CEOmust not engage in paid work outside the duties of the Deputy CEO's office without the Minister's approval. 11C Remuneration (1) A Deputy CEO is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the rules. (2) A Deputy CEO is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the rules. (3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of Deputy CEO. Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of a Deputy CEO will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)). 11D Leave of absence (1) A Deputy CEO has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (2) The Minister may grant a Deputy CEO leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines. 11E Resignation (1) A Deputy CEO may resign the Deputy CEO's appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation. (2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day. 11F Termination of appointment (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a Deputy CEO: (a) for misbehaviour; or (b) if the Deputy CEO is unable to perform the duties of the Deputy CEO's office because of physical or mental incapacity. (2) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a Deputy CEO if: (a) the Deputy CEO: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with the Deputy CEO's creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of the Deputy CEO's remuneration for the benefit of the Deputy CEO's creditors; or (b) the Deputy CEO is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or (c) the Deputy CEO engages, except with the Minister's approval, in paid work outside the duties of the Deputy CEO's office (see section 11B); (d) the Deputy CEO fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 11G. 11G Disclosure of interests to the Minister A Deputy CEO must give written notice to the Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Deputy CEO has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Deputy CEO's functions. 11H Terms and conditions of appointment A Deputy CEO holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister. 11J Delegation by Deputy CEO (1) If a Deputy CEO is delegated any of the CEO's functions or powers under section 58, the Deputy CEO may, in writing, sub-delegate that function or power to an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in EPA. Note: Sections 34AA to 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contain provisions relating to delegations. (2) In performing a sub-delegated function or exercising a sub-delegated power, the sub-delegate must comply with any written directions of the Deputy CEO. Subdivision D — Monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance 12 Office of Monitoring, Compliance, Enforcement and Assurance (1) There is to be within EPA an Office of Monitoring, Compliance, Enforcement and Assurance (OMCEA) of EPA. (2) The OMCEA must include a Deputy CEO. (3) The OMCEA has the function of assisting the CEO in performing the CEO's functions, to the extent those functions relate to monitoring compliance with, and enforcing, Commonwealth environmental laws. 12A CEO must consult Auditor General (1) The CEO must consult the Auditor-General in establishing EPA's monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance systems. (2) The Auditor-General must conduct performance audits of EPA's monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance systems: (a) 3 years after the commencement of this section; and (b) at such times occurring: (i) after the first audit; and (ii) before 1 January 2036; as the Auditor-General considers appropriate, such that no more than 5 years occurs between audits. 12B Monitoring plans Before the CEO, under a Commonwealth environmental law: (a) grants an approval, permit, licence or other permission (however described) subject to conditions; or (b) imposes new conditions on such an approval etc.; the CEO must develop a plan to monitor compliance with the conditions. Subdivision E — Staff and consultants 13 Staff (1) The staff of EPA must be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999. (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999: (a) the CEO and the APS employees assisting the CEO together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the CEO is the Head of that Statutory Agency. 13A Consultants The CEO may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, engage consultants to assist in the performance of the CEO's functions. Subdivision F — Miscellaneous 14 Fees (1) The CEO may charge a fee for the performance of any of the CEO's or EPA's functions. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to performing a function: (a) on the CEO's own initiative; or (b) if a Commonwealth law other than this Division deals with the charging of fees for the performance of that function. 14A Annual report The annual report prepared by the CEO and given to the Minister under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a period must include details about the action the CEO took during the year to establish and maintain EPA's monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance systems, including the following: (a) any advice the Auditor-General gave to the CEO under subsection 12A(1) during the year; (b) any action the CEO has taken during the year in response to advice given by the Auditor-General under subsection 12A(1); (c) if the Auditor-General conducted an audit under subsection 12A(2) during the year—a copy of the Auditor-General's report of the audit. 14B Vacancies to be filled as soon as practicable If a vacancy occurs in the office of CEO or in an office of Deputy CEO, the Minister and the joint committee must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the vacancy is filled as soon as practicable. (4) Heading to Part 3, page 10 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute: Part 3 — Registers (5) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 4 to 6), omit: The Minister may give the CEO a statement of the Minister's expectations for the CEO and EPA. The CEO must respond to any such statement of expectations with a statement of intent. (6) Clause 15, page 10 (line 10), omit "law mentioned in section 13", substitute "law referred to in subsection 10A(1)". (7) Division 2, clauses 16 and 17, page 11 (line 1) to page 12 (line 1), omit the Division. (8) Heading to Division 3, page 13 (line 1), omit "Division 3", substitute "Division 2". (9) Clause 18, page 13 (line 6), omit "law mentioned in section 13", substitute "law referred to in subsection 10A(1)". (10) Part 5, clauses 43 to 56, page 22 (line 1) to page 29 (line 17), omit the Part, substitute: Part 5 — Parliamentary Joint committee on Environment and Energy Division 1 — Introduction 43 Simplified outline of this Part The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Environment and Energy is established to monitor the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions, and for related matters. Division 2 — Parliamentary Joint committee on Environment and Energy 44 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Environment and Energy (1) A Committee to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Environment and Energy is to be established as soon as practicable after the commencement of each Parliament. (2) The joint committee is to consist of 12 members: (a) 6 of whom must be members of the Senate appointed by the Senate, and 6 of whom must be members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House; and (b) 5 of whom must be members of the Government; and (c) 5 of whom must be members of the Opposition; and (d) 2 of whom must be members of the Parliament other than members of the Government or Opposition. (3) The co-Chairs of the joint committee are to be: (a) the joint committee member nominated as co-Chair by the Prime Minister; and (b) the joint committee member nominated as co-Chair by the leader of the Opposition. (4) A member of the Parliament is not eligible for appointment as a joint committee member if the member is: (a) a Minister; or (b) the President of the Senate; or (c) the Speaker of the House of Representatives; or (d) the Deputy President and Chair of Committees of the Senate or the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. (5) A joint committee member ceases to hold office: (a) when the House of Representatives expires by the passing of time or is dissolved; or (b) if the joint committee member becomes the holder of an office specified in any of the paragraphs of subsection (4); or (c) if the joint committee member ceases to be a member of the House of the Parliament by which the joint committee member was appointed; or (d) if the joint committee member resigns the member's office as provided by subsection (6) or (7). (6) A joint committee member appointed by the Senate may resign the member's office by giving a signed notice to that effect to the President of the Senate. (7) A joint committee member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign the member's office by giving a signed notice to that effect to the Speaker of that House. (8) Either House of the Parliament may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy amongst the members of the joint committee appointed by that House. 45 Powers and proceedings of the joint committee All matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the joint committee are to be determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. 46 Functions of the joint committee (1) The functions of the joint committee are as follows: (a) to monitor the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions and duties; (b) to report to both Houses of the Parliament, with such comments as it thinks fit, on any matter connected with the performance of the CEO's functions and duties that the joint committee considers should be directed to the attention of the Parliament; (c) to examine each annual report prepared by the CEO under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and report to both Houses of the Parliament on any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such annual report; (d) to inquire into any question in connection with the joint committee's functions that is referred to it by either House of the Parliament, and to report to that House on that question; (e) to consider proposed appointments to the office of CEO (see subsection 10C(3)) or Deputy CEO (see subsection 11(4)); (f) to make recommendations to both Houses of the Parliament, the Minister and the CEO on: (i) draft estimates referred to in section 47; and (ii) what proportion of EPA's budget should be spent on monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance; (g) to conduct reviews and make recommendations under section 48; (h) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of the above functions. (2) Subsection (1) does not authorise the joint committee to reconsider the CEO's decisions or recommendations in relation to a particular decision under a Commonwealth environmental law. 47 Estimates (1) Without limiting section 46, the joint committee may request the CEO to submit to the joint committee draft estimates for EPA for a financial year before the Federal Budget for that financial year. (2) The CEO must comply with the request in time to allow the joint committee to consider the draft estimates and make recommendations on them before the Budget. 48 Review of Commonwealth environmental laws The joint committee must: (a) regularly review Commonwealth environmental laws; and (b) if the joint committee reasonably believes that the purposes of those laws would be better achieved if any functions under those laws were transferred to the CEO—recommend to both Houses of the Parliament and the Minister that the functions be transferred to the CEO. (11) Clause 58, page 30 (lines 7 and 8), omit "laws mentioned in section 13", substitute "laws referred to in subsection 10A(1)". (12) Clause 58, page 30 (before line 9), before paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) a Deputy CEO; or (13) Clause 58, page 30 (line 9), omit "referred to in section 52", substitute "of EPA". (14) Clause 58, page 30 (lines 10 and 11), omit paragraph (1)(b). (15) Clause 60, page 32 (lines 4 to 6), omit paragraph (2)(b). Let me start by saying that standing up a federal environment protection agency is a good thing. In fact, in 2021 I introduced legislation in the parliament to do just that. A well-designed and resourced independent and accountable EPA that can give expert advice and act as a tough cop on the beat could be a game changer to ensure accountability and compliance with our national environmental laws, to re-establish community trust and, most importantly, to protect our natural environment. But, sadly, that is not what this bill gives us. Instead of establishing an independent EPA, this bill establishes the shell of an agency initially located within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water itself. How is that independent? How can the community have confidence in an EPA when it is being administered by departments and, by extension, governments who, on both sides, have a terrible track record of protecting our environment? Moreover, while a statement of expectations will be provided by the minister, the government's EPA has no legislated guiding principles, duties or objectives to ensure it will be focused on protecting the environment. The CEO would be appointed by the minister with no real oversight, and the minister will retain the power to call in any decision they choose, taking it out of the CEO's hands for any reason. In these circumstances there's clearly no guarantee the EPA will be the frank and fearless regulator this country so desperately needs. Instead of establishing a transparent, accountable EPA with an independent board, or at least a parliamentary committee providing oversight and advice to the organisation, the bill provides for a sneaky, secretive advisory committee, appointed by the CEO, whose members were chosen for reasons we may never know and which will provide advice—the content of which we may never know and the effect of which on decisions we may never know. It's clear Australians are sick of this stuff. Indeed the outcome of the last election, which saw a record number of Australians deserting the major parties in favour of independents and smaller parties, proves as much. Clearly the community is crying out for transparency and accountability, including in environmental law, and this government is failing to deliver. All of this is why I'm introducing these comprehensive amendments based on my 2021 bill, which would establish a truly independent, strong and transparent EPA—an agency that depoliticises, streamlines and strengthens environmental regulation. Importantly, it will be structurally independent from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—a fact which will bolster community confidence in the processes that are supposed to protect and conserve our natural environment. These amendments will also ensure the EPA can effectively and transparently exercise the administrative functions currently held by the Commonwealth concerning the EPBC Act. This includes issuing approvals, granting permits, auditing environmental impact assessments and monitoring post-approval impacts. This will ensure the EPA has the power to undertake both systemic and individual investigations into applications, environmental impact statements or any other documents received in support of an application. Moreover, the EPA will have the power to terminate an approval or issue a stop-work order in circumstances where serious and environmental harm has been caused or is imminent. Importantly, my changes ensure the EPA will be headed by an appropriately qualified CEO who is independently appointed for a fixed term and supported and overseen by a newly established joint committee on the environment and energy. To avoid even a perception of bias, senior staff will be prevented from having any potential conflicts of interest, including employment as a politician or a lobbyist in the five years preceding appointment to the EPA. Surely, at a time when we're seeing the imminent collapse of precious ecosystems, when Australia is a hotspot for extinction and deforestation and when we're already facing unprecedented threats from climate change, a strong independent regulator is more important than ever. To close, I note that we mustn't forget that we also need a renewed sense of urgency from the government in the important task reforming the EPBC Act so that the EPA has better environmental laws to enforce. The decision to split the long-overdue environmental reforms was deeply disappointing and leaves many Australians with a sense that the government may be fiddling while our earth burns. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments and back a strong, transparent and independent EPA. 12:10 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Clark for moving these amendments. I know that he has a very long and distinguished record of arguing for greater transparency and accountability in the administration of our responsibilities as a government, and I truly respect where he comes from in moving these amendments. I won't be supporting them today. I won't go into all of the details, because I think I've probably covered some of the issues in my remarks to other crossbench members who have moved amendments. Again I would remind the member that the objects of the acts that the EPA administers are very clear: they are the expectations of improving the environment and protecting biodiversity, as well as the statement of expectations that the minister sets for the EPA. Every decision is published, and statements of reasons are available on request, so there are additional transparency measures available. Some of the issues that the member has raised are actually quite complex, technically, particularly in terms of how they relate to transitional arrangements. We are happy to continue to work with the member for Clark, through the Senate inquiry processes and beyond, to see whether there are additional areas where we can improve the arrangements; however, we will not be supporting these amendments. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments (1) to (15) moved by the honourable member for Clark be agreed to.    

The House divided. [12:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 10 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 32 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Howarth, L. R. Jones, S. P. Laxale, J. A. A. McBain, K. L. Mitchell, R. G. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 5018 12:18 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 5018

Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024

Second Reading 5018 12:26 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The House divided. [12:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 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. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. 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. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 53 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chandler-Mather, M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. 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. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. 0 PAIRS

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

 Consideration in Detail 5019 12:31 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 6, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Nature positive is halting and reversing the decline in diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and native species populations by 2030 (measured against a 2021 baseline), and achieving recovery by 2050. (2) Clause 13, page 10 (line 2), omit "(1)". (3) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (2). I do not wish to take more of the House's time than is necessary to air my strong objection to the weaknesses of the Environment Information Australia bill and to move these amendments that have been circulated in my name. These objections have been expressed in detail in my second reading speech. This amendment goes to the definition of 'nature positive' at part 1, section 6, of the Environment Information Australia bill. The government has been parading its credentials by asserting how groundbreaking it would be for Australia to be the first jurisdiction in the world to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' into law. But none of that matters if the definition does not line up with what nature positive actually is. The government's definition that nature positive represents an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline is almost as vague as the coalition's case for nuclear power because it remains fundamentally undefined. It includes no reference to reversing the decline and restoring the populations of our native wildlife, for example. Goldstein, like all electorates across the country, has seen an observable decline in native wildlife populations, and additions to the endangered or threatened species list. A suitable definition of 'nature positive' in this legislation would not only refer to these urgent threats but collect and use the best available data to protect them. Absent this, the government will not be held to account on the measurable impact that commercial activities and project approvals may have on our native wildlife. The bill unamended would set an international precedent, in fact, that a government can legislate a subpar definition of 'nature positive'. Comparing the improvement of our environment against an indeterminate baseline is asking the parliament to in effect sign a blank cheque on environmental protection. I understand the government's intent that the head of the EIA will collect data and subsequently establish a baseline but nothing here prohibits the government from setting one that is weak and irreflective of the threats that our environment and native wildlife face. My definition sets an explicit baseline of 2021, which deliberately provides the EIA with the best available data set out in the latest State of the environment report. The legislation is also missing a target date at which point environmental recovery would be achieved. My amendment insert specifics. It defines 'nature positive' as halting and reversing the decline in diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and native species populations by 2030, measured against a 2021 baseline and achieving recovery by 2050. A definition of this strength is critical if Australia is to be seen as serious about restoring the damage caused to our environment by decades of weak regulatory practice. My concern is no baseline means backsliding is a real threat—and it wouldn't be the first time we have seen that, would it? Multiple government members have spoken to this legislation and the groundbreaking nature of defining 'nature positive' in this bill—except the bill does not define 'nature positive', and that is what this amendment seeks to do. 12:34 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Goldstein. I actually think they are incredibly reasonable amendments. In my 30 years working in the business environment, it was always fundamental for us in a business sense, when we were seeking to shift the dial, to ensure that any objective or goal that we set for ourselves was defined as having five key parts. We used to call them SMART. It's a SMART objective. They need to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. Those five measures always helped in defining a starting point that you knew you could move forward from. I understand there is a lot of excitement about introducing legislation that begins to talk about what nature positive may mean, but the fact of the matter is the opportunity is here for us to set that. I wouldn't be arguing in favour of this as strongly as I am had we not had the 2021 state of the nation report, so we do have a baseline, as the member for Goldstein has already alluded to, that we could commence from this point in time. I do commend the member's amendments and again add my voice to hers. 12:36 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I would like to speak in support of the proposed amendments moved by the member for Goldstein. Nature positive represents generational reform of our environmental laws, and it's really important we get this right. And what must remain as a central purpose of these reforms is that it's about improvement, not just protection. That's what nature positive means. Words really matter. Nature positive adopts language that's globally accepted to refer to a net gain in nature. And, to achieve a net gain, we need to include ambitious and quantifiable targets. Australia signed up to the global biodiversity framework, which includes concrete commitments to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, and that goal has been consistently adopted around the world to guide urgent action to get nature visibly and measurably on the path to recovery. It makes complete sense that we would include this measure in the definition of nature positive in this bill, but this bill falls short. There is no goal for recovery; there is no baseline. The bill leaves it to the head of Environment Information Australia to determine the baseline for nature positive. I strongly agree with the amendments that the definition of 'nature positive' should reflect a clear goal to halt biodiversity decline by 2030 measured against a 2021 baseline. It makes sense to make the 2021 baseline consistent with the current national State of the environment report data. I commend this amendment. 12:37 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Goldstein for moving the amendment. I want to acknowledge that the intent behind it is absolutely in line with the intent of the government in moving this legislation. There will be a baseline, but it will be set by experts—not by me, not by this parliament at an arbitrary date. We need to know what the baseline is because we need to make sure that we're measuring progress and that we've got a consistent baseline measurement from which to measure that progress. As members know, one of the additional things that this package of legislation does is establish an independent head of Environment Information Australia, and then we ask that independent expert to set the baseline in consultation with other experts. We're looking for data nerds to do this work, if I can put it that way, rather than the parliament doing it. It will be one of the first tasks given to the head of Environment Information Australia. The legislation says that the baseline must be set by 31 December 2025. That's in schedule 13 of the transitional and consequential amendments bill. The head of Environment Information Australia will consider factors that affect the condition of ecosystems across the country from time to time, like droughts, bushfires and floods. One of the problems with just picking a date that covers all of the indicators right across Australia is, if you've had particularly bad bushfires in one half of the country but not the other half of the country, if you've had flooding somewhere but not elsewhere, or drought, you can have the baseline thrown out by those sorts of anomalies, so we actually need someone who's an expert at evaluating data to make sure we're getting the baseline right. As the member for the Goldstein's acknowledged, we need to make sure that we're measuring progress in the improvement of our ecosystem but not from a baseline that has been either positively influenced or negatively influenced over a longer trajectory because of an anomaly in the weather or some other type of anomaly. As the member for Goldstein said, the baseline will provide a national reference point for key indicators and metrics for measuring diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and species. Nature-positive reporting may include additional reference points as indicators, metrics and data improve over time. When reporting on nature positive, the Head of Environment Information Australia will be able to evaluate and report on actions to improve our ecosystems. The Head of EIA will start by looking at the priorities that I've agreed to with the states and territories. The state and territory environment ministers have already agreed with us that Australia's national priorities include a coming out of the Kunming-Montreal agreement, protecting and conserving 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea by 2030, restoring degraded land, controlling and eradicating invasive plants and animals, no new extinctions and creating progress towards creating a circular economy. It's also very important—and I thank the member for Goldstein for acknowledging this—that the term 'nature positive' will be defined in this bill. This is a world first. Australia does have a right to be proud of it, and I understand why members are determined to make sure that we go beyond definition to implementation in our progress towards nature positive. It's a relatively new term internationally, and creating progress towards that includes that progress resting on a commonly understood definition of what nature positive means. While goals and objectives are also important, we've demonstrated our commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 through our support for the Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and through our national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which is something that Australia has given to the international community to show that we are prepared to be judged globally on the progress that we make. I thank the member once again for her very thoughtful contributions. 12:42 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I just have a couple of points to pick up on in reference to the minister's remarks. The first is that we do have the Australia state of the environment 2021report, which has data and was expert driven, so I think there's a strong argument that we are going to have to find a baseline and that's it. Indeed, that might be where the EIA lands anyway. The second point that I would make is that I think we have a fundamental problem with this three-part package of flagship legislation. This critically important legislation is badged 'nature positive', and yet we can't even explain to members of the Australian public what 'nature positive' actually means. To some degree, this is a communication question, given that business and communities will be trying to understand the implications of this legislation without the baseline definition, as outlined by the member for North Sydney and the member for Curtin, having any measurability or specific numbers behind it. The third point that I would make harks back to the debate that we had around the Climate Change Act and the conversations around 43 per cent being the floor, not a ceiling. We've jumped forward a couple of years, and the current debate on one side of this chamber is around backsliding on those kinds of targets. I think there's an immense risk that, when you don't enshrine numbers in the law, some future government will either backslide or set weak targets that do not get us to where we need to be. I accept the minister's good-faith aspirations and genuineness around what she is trying to achieve, but I don't think that we can assume that any future government will do the same. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments (1) to (3) moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.    

The House divided. [12:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 12 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 34 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Fernando, C. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Howarth, L. R. Jones, S. P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 5022 12:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 5022

Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Second Reading 5022 12:56 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the bill now be read a second time.    

The House divided. [12:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 5023 12:59 Ms 300124 North Sydney TINK () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 13 to 17), omit the clause, substitute: 3 Objects The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to establish Environment Protection Australia to support the delivery of accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making; (b) to promote public trust in environmental regulatory decision-making through: (i) publication of comprehensive information within reasonable timeframes in relation to the decisions of the CEO of Environment Protection Australia; and (ii) requiring transparency for those decisions; and (iii) ensuring opportunities for the public to inform those decisions. (2) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of CEO, insert: Charter of Consultation means an instrument made under subsection 23B(1). (3) Clause 13, page 9 (line 4), after "by", insert "or under". (4) Clause 13, page 9 (after line 8), at the end of subclause (2), add: Note: Subparagraph (c)(ii) ensures that the CEO's functions include a function delegated to the CEO under another law of the Commonwealth. (5) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 3 to 10), omit the clause, substitute: 15 Simplified outline of this Part The Minister may give the CEO a statement of the Minister's expectations for the CEO and EPA. The CEO must respond to any such statement of expectations with a statement of intent. The CEO must establish and maintain on EPA's website registers containing information in relation to certain decisions of the CEO (called registrable decisions), certain approvals and other actions by the CEO, and any other matters prescribed by the rules that relate to a law mentioned in section 13. These registers are to contain information to inform public participation in environmental decision making. The CEO must make a Charter of Consultation for the CEO's decision-making when performing the CEO's functions. The CEO must have regard to that Charter, and take certain additional steps, to ensure meaningful public participation in that decision-making. (6) Clause 18, page 13 (after line 4), after paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) a register of the following: (i) audits, compliance reports and plans of management relating to approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; (ii) documents relating to compliance and enforcement of approvals under that Act; (iii) any other documents prescribed by the rules that relate to approvals, or post-approval actions, under that Act; (7) Clause 18, page 13 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A registrable decision is to be included on the register of registrable decisions within 28 days after the day the decision is made. I actually had the opportunity to speak about these amendments yesterday. They focus very much on the timeframe for community input that's currently within this transitional bill, as discussed with the minister and her team previously. At the moment, the timelines in the bill are quite opaque and vary from ministerially driven through to 10 days. I'm seeking to increase that to a standard 40 days across this bill. I know that on many occasions in the past we have seen projects go through in what I think are quite unreasonable timelines, in that they're announced in the week leading up to Christmas and communities are given until the end of the first or second week in January to respond. That makes it incredibly difficult, so I commend these amendments to the House and thank the minister and her team for considering them. Question negatived. 13:01 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 20), after "Australia,", insert "establishes the Board of EPA". (3) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 20), after "the CEO of EPA.", insert: The Board's functions include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions. (4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 2), omit "the CEO and". (5) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 3 to 5), omit "the CEO's independence by directing the CEO in the performance or exercise of the CEO's functions or powers", substitute "the Board's or the CEO's independence by directing them in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers". (6) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 17), after the definition of advisory group, insert: Board: see section 11A. Board member means a member of the Board and includes the Chair. (7) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of CEO, insert: Chair: see subsection 11D(5). Deputy Chair: see subsection 11D(5). (8) Clause 5, page 3 (before line 29), before paragraph (a) of the definition of entrusted person, insert: (aa) a Board member; or (9) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of entrusted person, substitute: (d) a person engaged under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the Board under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the Board's functions or the CEO's functions; or (10) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 14), after the definition of EPA, insert: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Indigenous person means a person who is: (a) a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia; or (b) a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. (11) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 3 to 7), omit the clause, substitute: 8 Simplified outline of this Part This Part establishes the Board of EPA and the office of the CEO of EPA. It also establishes EPA for the purposes of assisting the Board and the CEO in the performance of their functions. The Board is the accountable authority of EPA. Along with many Australians across the country, I was disappointed when in April this year the environment minister announced that the Albanese government had postponed its promise to fix Australia's broken nature laws under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The minister has said that the plans have simply been pushed back, but, with no firm commitment to get them passed through parliament before the next election, it may be that these broken laws have a good chance of remaining broken. This is why the opportunity must be grasped right now to strengthen our national nature laws meaningfully. We've been debating today the so-called stage 2 of the EPBC Act reforms, which will establish two bodies: Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia. These are indeed crucial bodies that do need to be established, and I commend the government for creating them. The problem, however, is that these bodies, once established, will only oversee our fundamentally broken laws—laws which for the past 25 years have failed to protect nature in this country. This is why I bring a series of amendments to the bills today, while there's the chance to fix some of the most egregious failings of the EPBC Act as it currently stands. Australia was hopeful after the 2022 election—hopeful of climate action and hopeful of nature protection. Unfortunately, two years down the track, we continue to watch on while our native forests, including critical habitat of threatened species, continues to be clear-felled. We watch on while land-clearing for the beef industry continues at a rate that makes Australia a global deforestation hotspot, along with the Amazon and Borneo. And we watch on while the list of threatened species in this country continues to grow rather than contract. I've been working on a range of amendments with dedicated environmental organisations. They all agree that these amendments I bring forward today are both critical and urgent but also simple and achievable. In consultation with these groups, I've drafted amendments which do three things to protect our bushland and our trees. The first is to repeal the exemption for regional forestry agreements in the EPBC Act. Logging conducted under these agreements is currently exempt from needing federal government approval. My amendments would fix this by simply requiring that, like all other conduct that may have a significant impact on our environment, logging under these regional forestry agreements must be referred for assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. It is a simple ask. As Professor Graeme Samuel himself said: We ought to get rid of those RFAs. They should never have been introduced in the first place … I'd be urging state governments to get rid of them … But they shouldn't be there. I thought they were a shocker, frankly. The second amendment is similar. It would repeal what is called the continuous use exemption. Under this exemption, land-clearing activity on private land that was occurring before the environment laws were introduced in 1999 is allowed to continue. This exemption is being exploited and is largely responsible for making Australia a global deforestation hotspot. It must be repealed. Again, this amendment does not prohibit land clearing; it simply requires that you need approval if you want to clear land, to ensure that critical habitat for threatened or migratory species is not being destroyed. The third amendment is the insertion of a new provision that puts beyond doubt the circumstances in which logging needs federal government assessment and approval. This amendment makes clear that any area over 20 hectares where threatened or migratory species may exist must be referred for assessment under the national EPBC Act. These amendments do not ban anything or prohibit anything; they simply put land clearing and native forest logging on the same footing as other activities which require federal government approval. If approved, they can still go ahead. It is possible to take the opportunity right now to fix these clearly broken parts of our national environment laws. These amendments are urgent, and they are possible. There is no need to delay, and our wildlife can't wait. I commend these amendments to the House. 13:06 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Mackellar for her thoughtful contribution, the work she's done in preparing these amendments and the spirit in which she offers them. I know that she is absolutely determined to see better outcomes for nature in Australia. They are very important issues that she has raised, and I've been working overtime on exactly these issues because I agree with her that they are absolutely critical to the success of nature protection in Australia. But, as I have sought to explain, the bills we are dealing with today and have been dealing with in the last few days are setting up the mechanisms our new laws will operate under. The new laws themselves will be part of stage 3 of our law reform process, and I'm not willing to bring forward the complex negotiations that have to go into the issues she has raised into stage 2. We'll continue to work on them for stage 3. In fact, I've made clear that there are six priority areas where there is still a pretty broad set of disagreements between stakeholders on a way forward; they're the six areas the department is particularly focused on with continuing consultations. Regional forestry agreements is one of these. We have said that national environmental laws will apply to regional forestry agreements, and we're working through right now how we do that. The other areas where we're continuing to focus our consultations are the assessment and approvals processes, restoration contributions, First Nations engagement, exemptions and continuing use provisions—I will go to those suggestions of the member for Mackellar in a moment—and climate change considerations. Returning to regional forestry agreements: it's important to note that close to 90 per cent of forest products now come from plantation timbers. We want to see more plantation forests and more jobs that come with them. We're investing $300 million to grow plantations, to modernise our timber manufacturing infrastructure and to build the skills of our forestry workforce. We've also put aside $500 million in the National Reconstruction Fund for forestry, fisheries and agriculture. Last year, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy changed the rules so that burning native timber is no longer classed as renewable energy. It is bizarre to think that it ever did. I'm not going to agree to amendments to regional forestry agreements that affect an entire industry and the jobs that rely on it without a thorough, thoughtful and consultative process. The same applies to continuing use provisions. I'm currently consulting on options for tightening and clarifying continuing use provisions, but these are complex issues, and I want to work through them with stakeholders in a mature and methodical way. I thank the member for her contribution. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments (1) to (11) moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.    

The House divided. [13:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 11 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 34 NOES Aly, A. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Chaney, K. E. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Georganas, S. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Lawrence, T. N. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Neumann, S. K. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:17 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on the sheet revised 2 July 2024, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (before line 7), before subsection 515AAA(1), insert: Delegations (2) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (after line 25), after subsection 515AAA(3), insert: Publication requirements (4) An instrument of delegation under subsection (1) or (2) must be published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after it is made. (3) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (after line 25), at the end of section 515AAA, add: Quarterly reporting requirements (5) If a delegation under subsection (1) of a power or function of the Minister under subsection 74B(1), 75(1) or 133(1) (a reportable provision) is in force in a reporting quarter, the Minister must prepare a report containing information on each decision made in the reporting quarter under the reportable provision either personally by the Minister or by the delegate. (6) The report must be prepared as soon as practicable after the end of the reporting quarter. (7) The Minister must arrange for the report to be published on the Department's website. Definitions (8) In this section: reporting quarter means a period of 3 months ending on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September or 31 December. The creation of Environment Protection Australia is an important step in the right direction. There are many welcome changes within the package of bills before the House, but there are also significant issues that need to be fixed. These issues go to transparency, accountability and the independence with which the new EPA will operate, and they should be addressed before the bills proceed to the Senate. The House should be a place where legislation is improved, not just rubberstamped. One of the main reasons for having an EPA is to take important environmental decisions out of the hands of politicians. We want to have independent experts assess projects in an unbiased and even-handed way, free from political interference and lobbying by special interests. This independence must be at the core of the new EPA. I accept that in some special cases the minister should retain the prerogative to make a particular decision. The minister and the government are the only ones who are ultimately accountable to the Australian people, so it is appropriate that the minister retains the right to call in a particular project which they may have previously delegated to the independent EPA. However, what is not appropriate is for the minister to call in a project and not tell the Australian people that they have done so. If the minister wants to make a captain's call, they need to be upfront about it. Unfortunately, this transparency is not provided for in the bill. The bill allows the minister to delegate certain functions to the EPA, but there is no requirement for the details of that delegation to be made public. As a result, we may have no idea which types of decisions will be delegated to the EPA and which ones the minister will keep for themselves. This is despite extensive consultation on ministerial call-in powers over the past year and clear feedback from a range of stakeholders about the need for transparency over what is delegated to the EPA and what is not. Unfortunately, this lack of transparency creates the risk that environmental approvals will be shrouded in the same secrecy as the flawed system of the past. My amendments would address this lack of transparency. Amendments (1) and (2) require that the instruments of delegation are made public so that we know which decisions a minister is handing over to the EPA and which the minister is designating for themselves. These amendments are constructive and common sense and respond to feedback provided by the environmental community, by the business community and by experts in environmental law. They do not place an unnecessary burden on the government; they merely require transparency on things that the public have a right to know. My team and I have worked constructively with the minister on these amendments. It is disappointing, therefore, that the government has decided not to support them. I understand the government no longer believe it is necessary to make the changes set out in my amendments because they already intend to provide a similar level of transparency. If this is the case, there should be no issue in providing for this transparency in the legislation. There should certainly be no problem in committing to make the instruments of delegation publicly available. Whilst I take the minister at her word and I know she wants to do the right thing, she cannot guarantee that all future ministers would act with the same degree of integrity. These transparency measures should be included in the legislation, and I urge the government to accept the amendments. 13:21 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Wentworth for this thoughtful group of amendments, and I rise in support of her on this work. The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 allows the minister to delegate decision-making powers to the CEO of the EPA. Most environmental approvals will be made by the EPA, but the minister will still hold powers to make some decisions themselves—for example, for large-scale renewable energy or fossil fuel projects. I want to be really clear. I understand that in some cases a democratically elected representative should make these decisions. Under our Westminster system, the importance of ministerial decisions is clear, valid and critical. But the EPA bill as currently drafted gives the public no line of sight on when and why the minister gets to make those decisions instead of the EPA CEO. In doing so, it gives me pause as to whether the new EPA is truly independent, as the government claims. Again, I take some comfort from what the member for Wentworth has just said about the assurances from the minister, and I don't doubt the integrity of this minister. Again, I like to vote for legislation where it's clear, in black and white, just where these powers lie and that they are futureproofed for all our generations to come. The member for Wentworth's amendments address the shortfall here really well, I think. They would require instruments of delegation, when the minister delegates her powers to the EPA, to be made public. The amendments would also require the minister to regularly publish reports listing decisions she has made and decisions the EPA CEO has made. I think these amendments are sensible, I think they're simple and I think they would provide much greater transparency on whether the minister's decision-making power is being used to subvert the role of the independent EPA. The current lack of transparency under the bill creates a risk that the environmental approvals would be shrouded in secrecy and that decisions would be made behind closed doors. When this happens, the public start to question if the decision made is the right one. It comes down to an issue of trust, really. They wonder if a minister has been politically influenced rather than having based their decisions on evidence. The public might start to lose that trust in the ability of decision-makers to actually protect Australia's environment. Both the 2021 Graeme Samuel review into the state of the environment and the government's own Nature Positive Plan found that a significant factor contributing to the community's lack of trust in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is a lack of transparency around environmental decision-making. Transparency of ministerial versus EPA decision-making is vital in restoring public trust in our environmental laws. We so need to do that. The public care deeply about these decisions. These decisions impact their communities; they impact on the places where they live. My constituents of Indi care about the things that may not directly impact them as well. They care about protecting native wildlife, like the Leadbeater's possum, the swift parrot, Sloane's froglet and the Macquarie perch—all endangered species found in Indi. My constituents are frequently contacting my office and stopping me in the street, concerned about the threats to these species and the high rates of extinction. The public want to and should understand how environmental decisions are made and by whom. I urge the government to support the member for Wentworth's amendments. 13:25 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Wentworth and the member for Indi for their contributions. Once again, I absolutely understand where these contributions are coming from. I of course also support greater transparency, and I will make sure that is clear to Environment Protection Australia through my statement of expectations. The functions and powers of the minister are routinely delegated to officials within the department to ensure the efficient administration of the act. Quite often that is for very routine matters that can most easily be dealt with by senior executives in the Public Service, and they include examples like a delegation to publish notices on the departmental website. Regardless of whether the function or power has been delegated, the minister continues to retain the right to make a decision where they consider it appropriate to do so. The delegations are managed through an instrument of delegation, as the member for Wentworth has explained. These are legal documents. The instrument itself is generally not published, though it could be provided on request, but the department publishes information about the decision that's been made under delegation on its website every time. Whenever a decision is made, that decision notice specifies the name of the person who made the decision and includes whether they are a delegate of the minister. The decisions also include the position of the delegate. I'm going to table a copy of one of these decisions, which shows the name of the person and their position in the department, just for the interest of members. It shows the action; the controlling provision—what it is that triggered the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act referral; who made the decision, the date of the decision; how long the decision is in effect for; and so on. My argument for not accepting the amendments as proposed is that providing the instrument that allows this does not give you more information than is currently available, which is who made the decision and under what circumstances. As for requiring a quarterly report which shows the delegated decisions—it's all available on the website. It just requires someone to sit there and do the work. I don't think doing that is a particularly good use of public servants' time, but I understand why the member wishes for that information to be public, and I assure her that it is. 13:28 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Very briefly, I just want to respond to the minister's remarks. I understand where the minister is coming from, but there is still the question: what's the problem with publishing the instruments of delegation? I appreciate you're saying that we're going to get the results, but I don't understand the downside of publishing those, and I think that sort of transparency is positive and useful in the parliament and more broadly. Question negatived. 13:28 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 2, page 13 (after line 24), after item 9, insert: 9A Before section 74B Insert: 74AAA Meaning of unacceptable impact on a matter of national environmental significance (1) An action would have an unacceptable impact on a matter described in column 1 of an item of this table if the action would have an impact described in column 2 of that item. Note 1: The matters in column 1 are matters protected by a provision of Part 3 (see section 34). Note 2: For item 2, the National Heritage values could be Indigenous values or non-Indigenous values. The National Heritage place could be an area in respect of which Australia has obligations under Article 8 of the Biodiversity Convention. (2) In this section: critical to the survival: a habitat is critical to the survival of a species or ecological community if the habitat is necessary: (a) for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting or dispersal; or (b) for the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators); or (c) to maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development; or (d) in the case of a species—for the reintroduction of populations, or for the recovery, of the species; or (e) in the case of an ecological community—for the recovery of the ecological community. register of critical habitat means the register kept under section 207A. viability: a species or ecological community is viable if the species or community: (a) is sufficiently abundant and diverse to sustain the full range of biological and ecological functions necessary for their long-term persistence and adaptability, including the ability to respond, recover or adapt to fluctuations or perturbations in the environment; and (b) is not declining in the wild. Determining viability includes considering cumulative impacts and impacts arising as a consequence of climate change. (2) Schedule 2, page 14 (before line 1), before item 10, insert: 9B Division 3 of Part 9 Omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "CEO". (3) Schedule 2, item 181, page 32 (after line 10), after the definition of staff of EPA, insert: unacceptable impact has the meaning given by subsection 74AAA(1). These amendments are important to ensure we do not waste communities' time and to ensure the proper protection of the environment. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is an act that needs structural reform urgently. I was here in this parliament when the Samuel review was handed down, and there was an outcry at the coalition's lack of motivation to put some proper protections in. Unfortunately, despite many promises and commitments, we have not really got that increasing protection yet, even with the legislation that we have before this House, so I share the frustrations of many other environmental public interest groups. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 5031 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Petitions: Telecommunications 5031 13:30 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I'd like to present petitions EN6025 and EN0611 from the Speewah community. The petitions read as follows— Speewah community is subject to continual and prolonged disruptions to telecommunications due to inadequacy of TELSTRA's battery supply at the Speewah exchange. Speewah, only 16km from Cairns, is an isolated tower with no alternate tower within reach due to terrain. In the event of loss of power, current battery capacity is a mere 59 minutes' maximum, after which community safety and business are compromised, with no internet or phone coverage, or power. Should a resident be taken ill or have an accident, there are no means of contacting emergency services. This is exacerbated after heavy rain or during cyclones, as all the creeks flood to the extent of being impassable, preventing either emergency or resident transport of the afflicted person. Our immense vulnerability was demonstrated during inundation following Cyclone Jasper. Businesses throughout the community are also profoundly impacted. Request: We therefore ask the House to : 1. Instruct the carrier TELSTRA CORPORATION to upgrade/increase the capacity of its battery supply at the Speewah exchange to provide at least 8 hours backup supply in the event of an electricity outage. This should occur before next cyclone season, ie November 2024. 2. Instruct the carrier TELSTRA CORPORATION, to provide an automated Emergency Power Plant (EPP) to power the said site once battery power is depleted, to allow charging of batteries and supply to the site in the event of extended outages, for example, cyclones. This should occur before the next cyclone season, ie prior to November 2024. from 37 citizens (Petition No. EN6205) Reasons: The Speewah community is subject to continual and prolonged disruptions to its telecommunications due to the inadequacy of the TELSTRA battery supply at the Speewah exchange. Speewah, only 16km from Cairns, is an isolated tower with no alternate tower within reach due to terrain. In the event of loss of power, current battery capacity is a mere 59 minutes' maximum, after which community safety and business are compromised, with no internet or phone coverage, or power. Should a resident be taken ill or have an accident, there are no means of contacting emergency services. This is exacerbated after heavy rain or during cyclones, as all the creeks flood to the extent of being impassable, preventing either emergency or resident transport of the afflicted person. Our immense vulnerability was demonstrated during inundation following Cyclone Jasper. Businesses throughout the community are also profoundly impacted. Request: We therefore ask the House to 1. Instruct the carrier TELSTRA CORPORATION to upgrade/increase the capacity of its battery supply at the Speewah exchange to provide at least 8 hours backup supply in the event of an electricity outage. This should occur before the next cyclone season, ie prior to November 2024. 2. Instruct the carrier TELSTRA CORPORATION, to provide an automated Emergency Power Plant (EPP) to power the said site once battery power is depleted, to allow charging of batteries and supply to the site in the event of extended outages, for example, cyclones. This should occur before the next cyclone season, ie prior to November 2024. from 448 citizens (Petition No. PN0611) Petitions received. Mr ENTSCH 7K6 These petitions have been considered by the Petitions Committee and are in order. The petitions state that Speewah is facing continued and long disruptions to telecommunications due to the inadequacy of Telstra's battery supply at the Speewah exchange. While Speewah is only 16 kilometres in line of sight from Cairns, it is isolated from a telecommunication standpoint due to the surrounding terrain. In the event of an outage, the Speewah exchange battery backup power supply only lasts for one hour. This vulnerability was evident during the most recent cyclone Jasper event. A physical copy of the petition EN0611 has secured 448 signatures and the digital version of the petition has secured 37 signatures. Both petitions call for Telstra to improve the battery backup supply for a duration of at least eight hours. Preferably this upgrade would take place before the next cyclone season beginning at the end of 2024. In the event of outages longer than eight hours, the petition states that Telstra should provide a supplementary power supply to enable telecommunications to continue and to enable batteries to charge. For the record, I strongly support these petitions. I'd like to thank Suzanne Grinter as principal petitioner for raising awareness on this very important issue. (Time expired) Modbury Hospital 5032 13:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Construction of the Malinauskas SA Labor government's $117 million upgrade of the Modbury Hospital in the Makin electorate is underway. The upgrade will include a new cancer centre, 44 mental health beds and over 300 car parking spaces. Importantly, the new cancer centre will see cancer services reintroduced to Modbury Hospital. Incorporating a dedicated cancer centre with 12 chairs will mean that up to 50 patients per day who need chemotherapy treatment will have a closer, more convenient location where they receive treatment while also taking pressure off the Lyell McEwin Hospital. The extra mental health beds, which include a new 20-bed older persons mental health unit, will not only benefit those patients directly but will also help reduce ramping at the emergency department. Combined with a new Medicare Urgent Care Clinic announced earlier this year by health minister Mark Butler and the Albanese government's tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, which has seen bulk-billing rates in Makin increase from 74 per cent to nearly 78 per cent, the Modbury Hospital upgrade will see that people in Adelaide's north and north-eastern suburbs have better access to the healthcare services they need. Accessible health care matters, and federal and state Labor governments are working together in South Australia to fix the healthcare mess left by Liberal governments. Batty, Mr Damien 5032 13:33 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'd like to acknowledge a true Australian hero, Damien Batty, from Kempsey in my electorate of Cowper. Damien is an Army veteran, having served his country for 26 years doing tours in Afghanistan, Solomons and Timor-Leste. Since retiring a few years ago, 'Damo' has had his own personal struggles, like many of our veterans, but he was determined not to be beaten. Just last week, after many months of training, Damien competed in the Warrior Games in Florida, once again representing Australia. Damien competed in four categories: archery, wheelchair rugby, swimming and sitting volleyball. The training paid off. Coached in the pool by his lovely wife, Carly, Damien amassed a haul of medals: silver in the 50 freestyle, gold in the 50 breaststroke, and gold in the four-by-50 relay. But this wasn't about winning or losing. Damien said: 'To pull on that green and gold jersey, it makes you feel 10 feet tall to wear the flag on your arm again. You wear it on your uniform every day, so to do that and represent Australia again is a great honour.' Well, Damien, well done, mate. You are what Australia is all about. Thank you, and to all the veterans: thank you for your service. Diabetes 5032 13:34 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Diabetes is a serious health issue in this country. It is, frankly, one of the biggest challenges confronting Australia's health system today. There are 1.2 million Australians who suffer from the disease. It's a health issue that affects quite a number of people in my electorate of Dunkley. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, nearly five per cent of people in Dunkley suffer from diabetes. It is also an issue that personally affects me, with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes prevalent in family members and friends. I was proud to be part of the launch of the report by the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport's inquiry into diabetes. This is a landmark report. I want to thank the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander, for his excellent work in leading this inquiry, and the committee. The recommendations highlight the need to do more in the prevention space through health promotion and interventions to improve the statistics, because there is an unfortunate increased prevalence of diabetes in Australia. More than 300 Australians develop diabetes every day. It is the leading cause of preventable blindness in working age Australians. We must do more to prevent the disease, and this report and its recommendations will ensure the necessary change. StreetHeart Bathurst 5033 13:36 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I recently had the privilege of joining the wonderful team from StreetHeart Bathurst. Every Saturday and Sunday you'll find the StreetHeart crew at Peace Park and other locations, providing food, clothing, care and compassion to local residents in need, including many who are homeless. Eager to help those doing it tough in Bathurst, local resident Tracey Denton Seymour teamed up with StreetHeart founder Rick Johnson OAM to establish a Bathurst branch of this wonderful charity. In December 2022, StreetHeart held its first weekend of support. Eighteen months on, StreetHeart has provided hundreds of Bathurst residents with a kindly word, a hearty meal and essential goods in their time of need. Thank you, Rick, Tracey and StreetHeart Bathurst volunteers Kayla Beedon, Meg Brodie, Bradley Clarke, Dean Whiting and Mark Downie for your dedication and commitment to this truly inspiring work. A big thankyou also to the Bathurst community for embracing the charity and to the many local businesses who have supported it through generous donations, including Martin Luhovy from FoodWeDo, Chris Ringrose from Harvest Cafe and Store, Alex Ward from Easy Print Bathurst and Natasha Sams from Muffin Break Bathurst. The StreetHearts gladly accept donated goods to make food, toiletry and medical packs, and are always seeking volunteers. So, if you're looking for a way to give back, joining the StreetHeart team is a wonderful way to do that. Our sincere gratitude to StreetHeart Bathurst for your care, compassion and kindness. Racism 5033 13:37 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The Anti-Palestinian Racism in Schools Register was set up following increasing incidents of teachers, students, school sports staff and parents being silenced and discriminated against in schools. The register is a simple and secure way to report incidents of anti-Palestinian racism and discrimination in schools. Some of the unfortunate incidents that have been reported to the register include students not being allowed to bring flags to school on Harmony Day and other special days, staff and students being asked to remove Palestinian colours on special days and students not being able to write about Gaza in their creative writing exercises. Freedom of expression is important in Australia, and freedom of expression goes to the heart of what makes us a free and democratic society. It is such an important part of being Australian and enjoying the strong democratic system we are fortunate to have here, built on equality, dignity and respect. Incidents of anti-Palestinian racism and discrimination in our schools and, indeed, right across our communities are completely unacceptable, and I stand here against them. North Sydney Electorate 5033 13:39 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Three weeks ago, my community of North Sydney learned via social media that the Australian Electoral Commission, or the AEC, was proposing to abolish our federal seat. In true North Sydney style, however, and recognising that this is a draft proposal, people have mobilised to ensure the AEC understands our connections as a community of interest and the fact that we are united, unique and deserving of representation in this parliament. As I said in my first speech, despite common assumptions, the federal electorate of North Sydney is a vibrant and diverse community that draws in people of all backgrounds and ages. We are the thinkers, the doers, the feelers, the leaders, the believers and the achievers, and yet for a long time our voice, as it was presented here in Canberra, was lost in a two-party system determined to minimise our ambitions and our values. Well, hear me when I say the people of North Sydney want politics done differently. Our population is growing exponentially, with the new metro line opening in 2029. Please plan for what is to come, not what has been. As the third-largest business centre in our country, our community deserves dedicated representation, and, as one of the 75 original federation seats, in 123 years we have never shied away from leading by example or stepping in to advocate for the most vulnerable. We've earned our right to be a part of the ongoing democratic fabric of our nation, and we will do all we can to convince the AEC of that fact. Cyprus 5034 13:40 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide This year, 20 July will mark the 50th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Cyprus. It's been 50 years since the island was split in two, and it still remains occupied by over 30,000 foreign troops, with the northern part not being recognised by any nation in the world bar the invaders of 1974. Many thousands of people in 1974 made their way to Australia, many to my electorate of Adelaide—and I see the member for Kingsford Smith is here; he also has many people from Cyprus in his electorate. It is, as I said, the 50th anniversary, and it's a tremendous source of great pain to the many Greek Cypriot Australians who migrated here following those events. There are still homes in Cyprus where the rightful owners have never been allowed to return, and they are still not allowed to return. Fifty years is far too long to still be waiting for a solution. I'll be travelling to Cyprus later next month to commemorate the 50 years and participate in the wreath laying ceremony, together with many colleagues, parliamentarians from around the world—Senator Lou Raptakis from Rhode Island; Annie Koutrakis, a federal MP from Canada; Stephen Pappas, a senator from Wyoming, US; George Michalakis, a South African member of parliament; Effi Triantafillou, a Canadian member of parliament; Marietta Karamanli, who is from the French parliament; and many, many others. (Time expired) Local Government 5034 13:42 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It was a pleasure to attend the LGAQ annual breakfast yesterday morning, which forms part of the Australian Local Government Association's National General Assembly. Organised by Alison Smith, the CEO of the Local Government Association of Queensland, the LGAQ, and her good team, it was a great opportunity for members of this place and senators to engage with local government representatives. There are 77 local government areas of Queensland. Councillors and mayors from every corner of Queensland came together for a breakfast. There was a panel discussion and a trade fair. It was wonderful to see so many local mayors and counsellors from across Queensland, notably Councillor Tanya Milligan, Mayor of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council from my electorate. And there were some new faces—Robert Donaldson, a new councillor from Central Highlands, who was accompanied by Rachael Cruwys and Karen Newman from the Central Highlands Regional Council. Zoro, the Mayor of Murweh Shire Council needs no introduction. It is always good to catch up with him, and he has recently appointed a CEO, Bruce Scott OAM—no stranger to this place. And there was Andrew Martin, the Mayor of Blackall-Tambo Regional Council. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport, and we are currently doing an inquiry into local government sustainability. I look forward to working with local governments right around this country and to continue my strong engagement with the local government sector in the months ahead. Holt Electorate: Australia's Biggest Morning Tea 5034 13:43 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Recently, the Oakgrove Community Centre in Narre Warren South held their Biggest Morning Tea in support of the Cancer Council of Australia. Thank you to the Oakgrove President, David Haynes, and the manager, Mary Amalraj, for inviting me and coordinating the event. One in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85. The Cancer Council does vital work in providing support for families, information, advocacy and funding for cancer research. At the event, there were heartfelt speeches from Debra Soap and Lisa Robinson about their real-life experiences. Community members and schools like Narre Warren South P-12 College donated cakes, scones and raffle items to help raise money for this worthy cause. I am so glad to have events like the Oakgrove Biggest Morning Tea in my local community, which show the passion of the community to support one another. Oakgrove Community Centre also runs other activities throughout the year, including playgroups, community expos and workshops. Thank you to Oakgrove for all the work you do and for always supporting the community. Cost of Living 5034 13:45 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden Sadly, Australians are worse off today than they were two years ago. As the Leader of the Opposition explained in parliament just a few days ago, under the coalition government, before Labor was elected, a typical Australian family could secure a new variable home loan rate of 2.4 per cent—paying $35,000 a year. Now, two years later, after the Albanese Labor government decisions to drive up inflation, the result is that a new loan variable interest rate is 6.3 per cent. Australians are watching closely, because what they sense is that, under a Labor government, interest rates will be higher for longer. It's biting in every aspect of their lives. Whether it's groceries, electricity bills or paying for their kids' education, all of these things are going up. A completely neutral measure of how tough things are is how many people are seeking help. We've seen that 127,000 Australian families have gone onto hardship arrangements with their energy providers since Labor took office. Recently, I visited the New Life Foodbarn at Arundel. They've been operating for 16 years and are a wonderful community service. In the three weeks leading up to my visit, they had broken all records. If these numbers are not numbers that will send a message to the Albanese Labor government, then that message will be sent at the ballot box next year. Robertson Electorate: Australian Air Force Cadets 5035 13:46 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Today is a good day for the Central Coast. As many of you know, I'm always on my feet in this chamber when one of our own has done something amazing. Today, I am here to do that again. I want to talk about Cadet Warrant Officer Keira Johnson, who this year was awarded the 2024 New South Wales Governor's Sword of Honour for Excellence. This was following a selection process that assessed her leadership, community service and involvement, and efficiency. There was interview panel that was chaired by the New South Wales Governor, and Cadet Warrant Officer Keira Johnson was successful in being awarded the Sword of Honour for Excellence. This award is open to cadets right across New South Wales. Two of the 311 (City of Gosford) Squadron members advanced to the final four. To Cadet Warrant Officer Keira Johnson, congratulations on this award. During the June King's Birthday weekend, 311 (City of Gosford) Squadron participated in the 3 Wing AAFC—NSW & ACT competitions at RAAF Base Richmond, competing against over 40 squadrons in drill, small-bore shooting, field craft, aviation and RAAF knowledge events. The 311 squadron achieved the most points across the events, winning the 3 Wing Officer Commanding Cup for the best team. This is the first time the trophy has come to Gosford. Mining Industry 5035 13:48 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes There are a lot of words spoken in this place about a cleaner future and reducing our emissions. The reality is that we can't do that without a mining sector. The critical minerals—the cobalt, the rare earths, the magnetite, the clean coal—are all the things we need for a new, modern, cleaner environment. They are essential. What we've seen today is legislation passed that's actually going to make it immensely harder for those industries to actually operate. If we're serious in this country about reducing our emissions, we need to back communities like Broken Hill. Broken Hill has been carrying this country for 100 years, with silver, lead and zinc. Now they've got cobalt, magnetite and the rare earths, but they can't do it on their own. They're a strong community led by a strong council, but they need to have the backing of this parliament and this country. If we're serious, and not just having flowery words from our well-heeled friends up here on the corner, talking about how much they care for a cleaner future, we're going to actually have to back these towns financially to overcome the interference from international markets, largely from China, to get these businesses established. They can't do it on their own. They need the support of the Australian people if we are serious about having a cleaner future. Albanese Government 5035 13:49 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Here we are in a new financial year, and what a new financial year! Today is a fantastic day for Boothby and for Australia. The Albanese Labor government has put in place a range of initiatives that started on 1 July. Every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. While our tax cuts benefit 100 per cent of taxpayers, 90 per cent of women are better off than they would have been under the tax cuts proposed by those opposite, and 98 per cent of young people are better off, because the tax cuts of those opposite left out anyone on a low wage. But there's more; 2.6 million Australian workers on minimum wage get a pay rise. We're freezing the cost of PBS medicines on top of previous reductions in script co-payments and the 60-day scripts already cutting the cost of medicines. We have another two weeks of extended paid parental leave, a $300 energy bill relief for every household and $325 for small businesses. There's another 0.5 per cent in superannuation, taking employer contributions to 11.5 per cent. We're also wiping $3 billion of HECS/HELP debt and changing the way indexation is calculated to ensure that we never again have a situation where debt goes up faster than wages. We've already increased bulk-billing in my electorate of Boothby. That's a 4.2 per cent increase in bulk-billing. Labor wants you to earn more and keep more of what you earn. Climate Change 5035 13:51 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash After nearly 25 years in this House, it comes down for this to me: it's a matter of common sense in our legislation. It's a matter of trust given by the Australian people to our politicians. It's a duty of care to the Australian people. We take something from our doctors in our legislation when they commit to first do no harm—I say to your nation. Net zero by 2050 for me is a plan and a future target, but there's no bridge—I see the minister—that is practical from now to net zero by 2050 to get you there. I would ask anybody to come to me and show me how, without destroying Australian manufacturing, farms, businesses and opportunity, you can take this country from where we are today to net zero by 2050. Government members interjecting— Mr BROADBENT MT4 You're destroying manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing has been declining. I'd love it if the government's plan for manufacturing were true. It is not. It is not the future. You're not doing the best. You don't have a duty of care for this country. I say that to the Treasurer as well. Give me the plan that takes you from here to net zero and all the things that go on the bridge to get there without destroying all the benefits that coal and gas grew this country on. Energy 5036 13:52 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong We know that those opposite wasted a decade on energy. They talk about a plan, but they had 22 failed plans, and now they have a 23rd. Let's go down memory lane to see how we got here. In 2013, we saw the Direct Action plan. Then the Liberals abolished the renewable energy target. We then had the emissions intensity scheme. Plan No. 4 was the clean energy target. Plans 5, 6 and 7 were three different versions of the National Energy Guarantee. Their eighth policy was not to have a policy at all. Nine and 10 were the big sticks—just them yelling at coal-fired power stations to keep them open. In 2020, there was UNGI, an MOU with energy companies. Then they proposed energy price caps, followed by a nuclear power committee. Then the Liberals released plans to build government owned coal-fired power plants and use public money to underwrite all new coal projects. That didn't last long. The 17th plan was the Grid Reliability Fund, followed by the famous gas-led recovery. Then we had an unlawful attempt to circumvent parliament, followed by the announcement, with no detail, of getting to net zero by 2050. In 2021, we saw the low-emissions tech fund, which never made it to parliament, and then the ham-fisted attempt to set new 2030 targets. Then, finally, they announced the Technology Investment Roadmap in 2021—whatever that means! They had 22 policies, they had 22 failures, and that's 22 reasons to prove that the Liberals' nuclear plan will also end up on the scrap heap where it belongs. Local Government 5036 13:54 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I apologise in advance for my croaky voice, but I've been talking a lot to local government members this week and listening even more. It's important that those opposite recognise that, this week in Canberra, the Australian Local Government Association has been meeting. I want to thank the mayors from right across Australia who come here and inject a bit of commonsense into the debates in this place. On this side of the House, we trust our local councils. We respect them. We believe they're well placed to have input into the public policymaking in this nation. We believe in acting in partnership with them and funding them in a way that allows them to make a real difference in their community. Sadly, what many of the mayors I spoke to told me is that, in the last two years, they feel like they've been ripped off. They feel like they've been deceived, and they feel like they have been treated with contempt. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised a fair increase to funding, and it hasn't happened. It's another broken promise by a prime minister who's big on announcements but very short on delivery. Instead of a fair increase in funding, what local government got was a committee inquiry. After two years, they got a committee inquiry instead of increased funding to allow them to deliver those projects they wanted to deliver in their local communities. We all know that when we announce an inquiry here it's just showing, 'We really, really care, but we're not going to do anything about it.' So I say to the Prime Minister that the message from the mayors was very clear this week: stop kicking the can down a potholed road, and deliver on your promise for a fair increase to local government in this nation. Taxation 5036 13:55 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Tomorrow will be my first day back in my electorate of Spence since 74,000 people in my electorate started receiving their tax cut along with a number of other measures our government has put in place to provide targeted cost-of-living relief where it counts the most. It's also the first day back in my electorate since 67,000 people in Spence started to receive an even bigger tax cut because of our Labor government. Ninety-one per cent definitely isn't too bad, I must say. This isn't a unique experience for me either. After all, every Australian taxpayer is receiving a tax cut. Plenty of members on the other side of the chamber will be doing the exact same thing, just like the member for Riverina, who will have 58,000 taxpayers better off because of our tax cuts, or the member for Farrer, who will have 66,000 taxpayers better off because of Labor's tax cuts. To all Australians, particularly those who have Liberal or National MPs representing them: where were they when the Prime Minister announced that he would be fighting to scrap the Morrison government's tax plan and give 84 per cent of all Australians an even bigger tax cut? For the member for Sturt's sake: will the 74,000 people in your electorate remember how those opposite had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give them a bigger tax cut? I wonder! Cost of Living 5037 13:57 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Australians are being smashed by the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis every single day. Just this week, media reports have revealed the massive price hikes that six million Australian families have been hit with on the NBN. Since October, internet prices have gone up by 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 per cent, and that's just in eight months. Who said in October last year that this was great news for consumers? Mr Hogan 218019 I don't know. Who said that? Mr COLEMAN 241067 Well, it was the Minister for Communications. Australians are paying an extra $120 for their internet access, and the minister said, 'This is great news for consumers.' The problem is that everything is up under this government—electricity, gas, rent, food, health, education, everything. It's all going up. Now, the Albanese government is welcoming a $120 a year increase in the cost of internet access. The question is: how are families supposed to find that extra $120? Where is the money supposed to come from? People haven't got an extra $120 in the middle of this cost-of-living crisis, and this is yet another example of the shocking impact of the Albanese government's homegrown inflation. Parliament 5037 13:58 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke It has been a curious few weeks in the parliament. We've seen the unholiest of political alliances form—Member for Macnamara—and even a few odd couples unite. Last night, we saw bedazzled MPs of different political parties and even different parliaments come together at the Midwinter Ball. Last week, we saw the Greens political party conspiring with the Liberals to block important reform to the NDIS. Yesterday, we again saw the Greens party teaming up with the Liberals to shamefully vote against peace in the Middle East. Just a few days ago, we saw a remarkable Communist infiltration of the coalition party room as the Leader of the Opposition announced his policy to force supermarket divestiture. It left me wondering: is the Leader of the Opposition the political love child of Margaret Thatcher and Karl Marx? Clearly, the Liberals' capitulation to the Nationals' interventionist streak has caused some rumblings across the proverbial aisle. Liberals were lining up to brief out against the policy and the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition. One of those Liberals opposite said, 'It felt like an ambush.' Another said, 'It feels like the Nationals tail is wagging the Liberals dog.' Perhaps most shockingly, one anonymous Liberal said, 'A lot of promises are being made to people that I don't think will be kept.' While I already lacked faith in the Liberals to be able to deliver on their promises, even those opposite don't trust the words of their leader. If his own caucus doesn't believe in the Leader of the Opposition, the Australian people certainly can't either. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 5037 CONDOLENCES Nairn, Hon. Gary Roy, AO 5037 Report from Federation Chamber 5037 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. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 5037 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliament House: Protests 5037 14:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I advise the House that today I have limited access to question time due to security reasons. This decision was made for the safety of all staff working in this building. This was a decision I did not take lightly and is a result of a serious security breach by protesters on our building today. Along with the President of the Senate, we are deeply concerned about this morning's event. It is unacceptable behaviour by the individuals. In relation to the specific events of this morning, I have personally spoken to the AFP commissioner and requested a thorough investigation into today's events. In addition, I've also asked the commissioner for a wider review of security arrangements. I do not want a repeat of today's events. As an update, I can advise the House that today's protesters have received penalties and are no longer welcome in this building. They have been banned from this building. Additionally, following recent events in this House, I have already commenced a process for strengthening this framework, including the introduction of additional consequences. I want to thank the AFP and the officers for their hard work and their ongoing commitment to the safety and security of this building. In light of the security incident this morning and ongoing investigations, I do not intend on making any further statements. I will, of course, update the House in due course. 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—Mr Speaker, on behalf of the government, we certainly support your actions. We condemn what occurred at Parliament House today, and we declare that those responsible should feel the full force of the law. Peaceful protest has an important place in our society, but this was not a peaceful protest. These actions have done absolutely nothing to advance any cause. Indeed, they have hurt the cause that those engaged in this reckless activity believe they are advancing. As members are aware, the security of Parliament House is, of course, the responsibility of the Presiding Officers and the Department of Parliamentary Services. When I was made aware of what was unfolding I spoke to our Attorney-General, who spoke to Commissioner Kershaw. I am advised, subsequently, that four arrests have been made. They should face the full force of the law. The Presiding Officers, of course, as you've just said, Speaker, have requested an investigation and review, which will now take place, and the government certainly welcomes such measures. I'm sure that you will keep members and senators updated and take any and all actions required to safeguard our nation's parliament. This is the seat of our democracy. It is not just an institution made up of walls and the beautiful architecture that we have here. It is symbolic of who we are as a people. Indeed, it was designed so that the representatives are below where the people can go. We don't want any unnecessary restrictions—of course people should be able to come and watch their parliament function in real time—but activities such as those which were engaged in this morning undermine that and undermine our democracy. 14:05 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—On behalf of the coalition, I condemn those actions we witnessed this morning. We welcome the news that four people have been arrested, and we thank the Australian Federal Police and the protective service officers here in the building for the work they do. We welcome your advice that an investigation is underway by the Australian Federal Police and no doubt by Parliamentary Services as well. Serious questions need to be asked about how these people were permitted entry into the building—in a couple of cases, as I understand it—and about who provided support to those people, and I think those questions need answers sooner rather than later. We need to understand the gravity of the situation, because these images will be beamed around the world, as they were when we saw those disgraceful, repugnant behaviours on the steps of the Sydney Opera House on 9 October. We need to send a very clear message that it is completely and utterly unacceptable in our society, in our democracy, that we see those messages hanging from the front of this parliament. They are antisemitic. 'River to the sea' is a statement about wiping out, eliminating, a race of people; let's be very clear about it. There's been a lot of debate in this place about how that might work, whether those words have a different form of meaning and perhaps can be justified in some way or other. They can't be, and they never will be. Mr Speaker, serious questions need to be answered. I wrote to you this morning, and cc'd the Prime Minister, expressing our grave concern that those flags were up there for at least 1½ hours. They should have been taken down immediately. We understand the safety issues; nonetheless, it sends exactly the wrong message. We welcome the outcome, as belated as it was, and we hope never to see a repeat of it again. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5038 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Payman, Senator Fatima 5038 14:07 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. During the course of the Prime Minister's meeting on Sunday with Senator Payman at the Lodge, was she spoken to in an aggressive or intimidatory manner? The SPEAKER 53517 I've got some difficulties with that question, because we need to ensure that it is under the standing orders of Practice regarding conversations and party arrangements. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I just go to the list on pages 553 and 554 of content of the exact nature that was part of that question as issues that go beyond what relates to the minister's responsibilities. Mr Dutton 00AKI In relation to this matter, as you're well aware, the Prime Minister has made a number of statements both in the House and outside of the House in relation to Senator Payman. It's in the context, obviously, of his public acknowledgement of a meeting on Sunday, and it's completely and utterly within order. The SPEAKER 53517 To assist the House, and to get the question over the line, perhaps the manager can rephrase the question about media reports about the indication of a meeting that took place, rather than just simply a conversation. It won't be within standing orders if it's just asking about a conversation. It's got to be directly related to a minister's or prime minister's responsibilities. The Manager of Opposition Business will get one more chance. Mr FLETCHER L6B I refer to comments the Prime Minister has made in this place about Senator Payman and to media reports about a meeting held by the Prime Minister with Senator Payman at the Lodge. Was Senator Payman, at that meeting, spoken to in an aggressive or intimidatory manner? 14:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The answer is no. A short while ago I received a message from Senator Payman, addressed to me: 'Dear Prime Minister. Thank you for your leadership. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve in the Australian Labor Party,' and it went on to indicate her resignation as a member of the ALP. Cost of Living 5039 14:09 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government helping ease the pressure on Australians? What approaches has the government rejected because they push up prices? 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question and for the work that she has done in being an outstanding representative for Chisholm. I, at the last election, repeated a theme that would run through all of our policies, which is 'no-one held back and no-one left behind', and that's what drives this government in providing responsible cost-of-living relief whilst also looking towards the future and aspiration of where our country can go with a future made in Australia. And both of those have received major advances this week. On Monday: a tax cut for every single taxpayer not just some; and, indeed, as well, a pay rise for 2.6 million workers on award wages. You put those two things together and you get people earning more and keeping more of what they earn. In addition to that: $300 in power bill relief for every household, two weeks additional government funded paid parental leave and the freezing of the costs of PBS medicines. This will make a real difference. I had a text message from someone before whose pay packet, this week, has gone up by $200 as a result of what we've done— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately. Mr ALBANESE R36 Apparently that's something that's a terrible thing for those opposite. Susannah, an aged-care worker in South Australia, has also said, 'This will help me out with the cost of living.' Tanya, a 66-year-old disability support worker who doesn't want to retire till she pays off her mortgage and gets set says she's happy because now she will be able to pay it off faster. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, has opposed all of these measures. They have had a couple of ideas lately, like pushing up power prices with nuclear reactors, and, this week, their plan to nationalise—one would think—the supermarkets, pushing up grocery prices. They are already trying to bury their nuclear idea like burying nuclear waste, like burying radioactive waste. The party of Menzies is promising to build their own power stations and take over the supermarkets. The Leader of the Opposition's answer to everything seems to be 'make the taxpayer buy them'. In January, the Leader of the Opposition was calling for a boycott of Woolies; now he wants to nationalise them. From boycott from buyout, that's what we've seen from in this period of months—from bagging out Woolworths to unexpected item in the bagging area. (Time expired) Housing 5039 14:13 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. We've seen building approvals, commencements and completions at their lowest levels for decades, yet, in 2023, your government brought in over 547,000 people. With one new home needing to be built every two minutes to accommodate your immigration intake, why is the government continuing to worsen Australia's housing crisis? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. It is highly disorderly to interject before a minister or prime minister speaks. I'm not having any interjections during this answer. The member was heard in silence. The Prime Minister will also be heard in silence. 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I note that people, including Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, who's the former MIRVAC CEO and the chair of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, have indicated that housing and rental affordability is a real problem which has been decades in the making and that it's about supply. The nation's housing ministers didn't meet in the last five years of the former government. They went five years without any contact whatsoever. We know that, in my home state of New South Wales, the coalition were in office for 12 years and they sold off 7,600 public housing properties and only built 4½ thousand, a net loss of 3,000 properties— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Member for Deakin, you have interjected nonstop during this answer—nonstop! You asked the question; I would have thought if you had asked a question that you would be here for the answer. You're not going to be here for the remainder of this answer; you will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 If someone has asked a question, the least they can do is listen to the answer. You mightn't like the answer, or you mightn't agree with the answer. But, if someone has asked the question and is given the courtesy of silence, that same courtesy is going to apply to the Prime Minister and every other minister. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 But now their opposition to public housing has gone national, with the opposition that they still maintain to the Housing Australia Future Fund; their opposition to build-to-rent, where they voted against the tax measures just last week; and their opposition to Help to Buy as well. That's even though the leader of the Queensland LNP, David Crisafulli—and I'll table this, to raise his profile a bit; I'm sure he'll appreciate it—at the LNP conference in Queensland back over the weekend, which was the one where 'nuclear' was not allowed to be said in any word or resolution, said on housing— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. If anyone interjects on this point of order, they will join the member for Deakin. The member for Wannon has the call. Mr Tehan 210911 My point of order is on relevance, Mr Speaker. He wasn't asked about nuclear; he was asked about 547,000 people coming to the country and— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Yes, and the Prime Minister was asked about why he's continuing to worsen the housing crisis. He was obviously disagreeing with that. He was saying the word 'housing' just as you were on your feet. He won't be able to talk about nuclear, but, obviously, he will be able to talk about housing, which is what he was asked about. The Prime Minister has the call. I'm not sure what the quote is, but I will listen carefully to make sure it's relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 The headline—you don't even have to go to the quotes—is 'Boost to Buy'. So we have 'Help to Buy' in the Senate, and the Queensland LNP are going to have a program they will go to the election on called 'Boost to Buy'. Listen if this sounds familiar: 'LNP to close the deposit gap for 1,000 Queensland first homebuyers with a new shared-equity program to offer a critical boost into home ownership.' Mr Crisafulli said, 'Every Queenslander who dreams of owning their home should have the chance to do so, which is why the LNP would offer a Boost to Buy.' They've ripped it off—they've just cut and pasted the Help to Buy plan that's currently stuck in the Senate and that they're voting against. The Greens are voting against it, even though it was in their platform when they went to the last election. The hypocrisy of this no-alition of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens shows no end. Economy 5040 14:18 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cost-of-living relief and managing the economy responsibly? What economic approaches has the government ruled out? 14:18 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Macquarie for her championing the cause of 67,000 people in her local community who got a tax cut this week because of this Prime Minister and this Labor government. It shows how focused we have been in the course of the last week in rolling out substantial, meaningful and responsible cost-of-living relief to ease the pressures that we know people are under. It has been an important week when it comes to the economy. On Friday, we learned that we're on track to deliver the second surplus in two years—the first back-to-back surpluses in more than two decades. By Monday we were rolling out cost-of-living relief in at least five different ways, and yesterday we introduced the legislation for a future made in Australia. That's because our responsible economic management is all about relief, it is about repair and it is about reform: relief when it comes to cost-of-living pressures, repair of the budget mess that we inherited from those opposite and reform of our economy to modernise and maximise the opportunities coming at us in a world of global net zero transformation. The last week laid bare, I think, the choice between us and them. There's cost-of-living relief from Labor, opposed by those opposite; renewables from Labor, reactors from those opposite; a future made in Australia or another decade of delay and denial; responsible economic management— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher is warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 or the kind of nuclear negativity and angry incompetence that we hear from those opposite. They wouldn't know the first thing about responsible economic management. On Tuesday, the shadow Treasurer was calling tax cuts handouts that would make things worse, after they voted for them. On Monday he said Australians have had five consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, when Australia hasn't had a negative quarter since he was a minister in the Morrison government. Last week he said core inflation was going down in Canada. The day after, new data showed it was going up. That was the same week he got rolled on reinstating stage 3. Last month he was rolled on public subsidies for nuclear reactors. In the same month, he said they supported tax breaks for small businesses all along, after they voted against them in the Senate. The year before, he said they supported energy bill relief all along, but they voted against it in both houses. In May he couldn't explain his party's migration numbers. Around that time, he said he supported people using their super for every investment that's available, which prompted another shadow minister to say, 'That's not our policy.' In April he said it's not the Reserve Bank's job to fight inflation. Is it any wonder that the opposition leader's most memorable grab of this parliamentary session was when he reassured the readers of the Sydney Morning Herald, 'Angus is not incompetent.' I beg to differ. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 5041 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Local Government Representatives, Hepatitis Australia, Miller, Colonel Christopher Charles, Symes, Hon. Jaclyn, Harrison, Hon. Jodie Elizabeth, D'Ath, Hon. Yvette Maree, Baume, Mr Michael Ehrenfried, AO 5041 14:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I have a number of acknowledgements I'd like to do, just as we have done every day this week. Today we say farewell to the councillors and mayors that have been visiting us all week. Welcome to all of those joining us today. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from Hepatitis Australia and members of the hepatitis community. They are visiting Parliament House today on the occasion of their event being held for World Hepatitis Day, observed on 20 July. In the gallery today is Colonel Christopher Miller, the former United States Acting Secretary of Defense; and three state ministers: Jaclyn Symes, the Attorney-General of Victoria; Jodie Harrison, a minister in the New South Wales government; and Yvette D'Ath, a former member of this place and the Queensland Attorney-General. And, finally, we have Mr Michael Baume AO, a former member for Macarthur, a former senator for New South Wales and a former Australian Consul-General in New York, with his grandchildren. Welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5041 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 5041 14:23 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Climate risk is worsening the cost of living, with dire consequences for communities in insurance and housing. They will be essentially unmortgageable if they are uninsurable. Methane heats up the atmosphere by some 80 times more than CO2. The government has now missed its statutory deadline to respond to the Climate Change Authority's recommendation to fix methane reporting. When will the government properly mitigate climate risk with methane reporting and a strong 2035 target? 14:23 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question, and I acknowledge her interest. I also acknowledge that 82,000 of her constituents are receiving a tax cut this week, which I know everyone would support. In relation to the honourable member's question, I also acknowledge her engagement with me on this. As she's aware, I have referred to the Climate Change Authority advice on better methane reporting. I requested that advice as part of our general check-up on reporting, including under the NGER scheme. It is appropriate and important that we properly capture methane emissions and report them appropriately and in accordance with our international obligations; that is right. It is also right that it is a scientifically complicated issue and that there are different views about the way to capture those emissions. There are contested views, and I've taken the time to work those issues through very carefully—to consider the arguments that are before me. My consideration of those measures is very advanced, and I will be making announcements shortly. Cost of Living 5042 14:24 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government providing cost-of-living relief, including through lower energy bills? What policies has the government rejected, and why? 14:25 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for the question. As a Victorian, he would know that, as of this week, with the $300 in energy bill relief from the Albanese government and the impact of the Victorian market offer, we are seeing Victorian energy bills, on average, come down by 23 per cent for households and 15 per cent for small businesses. That is how you deliver cost-of-living relief—concrete measures now, not fantasy nuclear reactors in 20 years time. The honourable member asked me how this is different from other approaches. It's different because it reduces prices, rather than increases them. It's different because it cuts prices, rather than increases them. This week we've seen more policy from the opposition which pushes prices up. They want to rip up renewables contracts and they want to break up supermarkets. Ripping up renewables contracts puts energy prices up, and breaking up supermarkets puts grocery bills up. We saw the headline in the Australian Financial Review this morning: 'Former competition regulator Graeme Samuel has savaged Peter Dutton's plan to break up supermarket giants, warning it could push up grocery prices for households.' We know energy prices have gone up by between $200 and $1,000, and now they're trying to put grocery prices up as well. It's not just the direct impact; there's also the impact on taxpayers. The opposition wants to create not one but two new government organisations to run its nuclear policy, which would add hundreds of billions of dollars of public debt, at the expense of taxpayers. A couple of weeks ago, the shadow Treasurer said he's not having any subsidies on his watch—none. He's dead against subsidies. When he was asked about his policy, he said: 'Don't worry about it. It's all off budget. That makes it okay.' But, on 5 June this year, almost exactly a month ago, the shadow Treasurer had a different view about off-budget spending. He was talking about off-budget spending and he said, 'Billions of dollars of off-budget funds are causing higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes.' So $45 billion off budget is terrible but $600 billion off budget is hunky-dory. It's hunky-dory according to the shadow Treasurer. When they released their policy, they said: From today, we will be speaking right across the country on the merits of our plan. Have we heard much since? We have the Queensland Liberal National Party conference on the weekend: 173 items, none of them about nuclear power and none about lifting the ban. To be fair—as we know, I like to be fair—there are more important issues. They're debating banning the Aboriginal flag at public events, they're debating selling the ABC and they're debating getting rid of mandatory medical certificates for elderly drivers. What a forward-looking vision for our country! It warms the heart. But there's nothing about nuclear, nothing about lifting the ban in Queensland and nothing about energy prices, because this Leader of the Opposition is running a rabble. (Time expired) First Nations Australians 5042 14:28 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister still committed to treaty and truth-telling? 14:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. When it comes to treaty, there are negotiations taking place at the state level, as I've said before, so I refer to those previous answers. Once every couple of months, when they're short of questions in question time, this question pops up. The fact is that those negotiations are at different stages in different states, and that is how treaties are being advanced or not advanced. In Queensland there was some bipartisanship, and in New South Wales there is bipartisanship. Workplace Relations 5043 14:29 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How have the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations reforms delivered better pay and more job security and closed the gender pay gap after a decade of wages being kept deliberately low? 14:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Hunter for his question, in particular his commitment to closing the labour hire loophole and delivering same job, same pay. I previously referred to the statistics on the three issues the member for Hunter has gone through. Of the 870,000 jobs created under the Albanese Labor government, more than half a million of them had been full time in a real shift for job security. Wages are now running at 4.1 per cent, whereas they averaged 2.2 per cent under those opposite. And the gender pay gap has never been lower than it is now. But I think to explain the difference that it makes in people's lives, there's nothing stronger than to go to an individual example, and an individual example of a mine worker in the Hunter—a mine worker by the name of Danielle. In mining, when we talk about the labour hire loophole, it's actually one of the ways that the gender pay gap has remained so big in mining, because, disproportionately, men in the industry have been directly employed and women in the industry have worked through labour hire. So, disproportionately, you end up with the lower pay scales going to where women are more likely to work. I referred to Danielle in an answer to a question asked by the member for Paterson a few weeks ago. At that point, the company had announced they were going to employ people directly. We didn't yet know what the pay difference would be for those workers. For Danielle, she has now been given confirmation of what her pay change will be as a result of the laws that were changed by this government. It is $33,000 a year. It's $33,000 a year for a woman who works driving trucks at a coal mine in the Hunter—$33,000 a year! On top of that, she's also getting a tax cut of $3,700 a year. For workers like Danielle, this is absolutely life changing. When I called her, she told me it brings her a bit closer to reaching her dream of pulling together a deposit and owning her own home. Being paid more is an essential part of housing affordability and an essential part of cost of living, but those opposite, at every opportunity they've had, have wanted people to be taxed more and paid less. On this side and with this Prime Minister, the Albanese Labor government is making sure people like Danielle are earning more, and they are keeping more of what they earn. It is life changing, but every one of the changes that have made a difference for Danielle have been something that we have had to fight to get through this parliament, that those opposite have opposed at every single turn. If you support more secure jobs, if you support better pay, if you support closing the gender pay gap then you have to support the exact laws that those opposite are targeting and wanting to repeal. Taxation 5043 14:32 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that a government he leads will not make any changes to the tax treatment of residential rental properties? 14:33 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Hume for his question and his dodgy little prop that he thinks is really clever, which he's waving around in the desperate hope that somebody will notice him up there in the press gallery. There are no photographers up there, Gus. As always, you've made a mess of it. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Grey—no; we're not having any props. The member for Herbert's been trying it on, and the member for Hume. Whatever you're holding up—I can't see it, but it's your iPad. The SPEAKER 53517 I don't know why you would hold an iPad that way, so just concentrate on the answer. The SPEAKER 53517 And the member for Barker is definitely not helping his cause. Order! The Treasurer is going to continue with his answer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Thank you, Mr Speaker. He can't organise a responsible economic policy and he can't organise a photographer to take a photo of his dodgy little prop. What hope do they have over there when this bloke is the key economic spokesperson for their party? The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, when he was asked a very similar question, our focus, when it comes to housing, is elsewhere. Our focus is on $32 billion of new investment, including $6 billion in the last budget, to the great credit of the housing minister, who fought for and secured a really substantial boost to housing in the budget. So our focus, when it comes to housing supply, is in new funding in the budget. When it comes to tax reform, once again, our focus is elsewhere. Our focus in tax reform is multinational tax arrangements, so I shout out the assistant minister for introducing the legislation this week to help ensure that multinationals pay their fair share. I know that this is a longstanding commitment from the assistant minister. I pay tribute to him for his work. Our focus when it comes to tax reform is not on the question that we were asked a moment ago. Our focus is on multinationals. Our focus is on build to rent, which you voted against. Our focus is on the PRRT that— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on his point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Like yesterday, this is a very tight question. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that a government he leads will not make any changes to tax treatment of residential rental properties? The Treasurer has done everything to avoid answering this question, but it is telling that he won't answer it, that the Prime Minister refuses to even make one comment— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. You're making a point on relevance. It's okay. Order! I just require you not to make additional statements as part of the question, alright? We're going to deal with this point of order, and then I'll call the Leader of the House. The SPEAKER 53517 You'll get the call straightaway. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, on that basis, I ask that you direct the minister to be relevant to the question, and that is a pretty reasonable request to make. The SPEAKER 53517 It is a reasonable request, so I will ask the Treasurer to make sure—and I will listen carefully to make sure—he is being relevant. He did specifically say 'the question I was asked about', and his answer was, 'Our focus is not on that; it's on other issues.' I can appreciate the leader, under the standing orders, would like a yes or no—a 'rule in' or 'rule out'. But, as we have gone down this road many times, the Treasurer will need to phrase his answer to make sure he is being— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will need to make sure his answer is directly relevant, and my ruling is to ensure that he is directly relevant, that he must be on the topic and that he's got to ensure that he is addressing the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I have addressed and am addressing the question when I say that our focus in tax reform and in housing reform is not on the issues that the shadow minister has asked us about. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! The member for Hume is warned. He's had a great go this week, so he's not going to be interjecting. I'm not having any of it on the last day, okay? Albanese Government 5044 14:37 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering more support for Australian families who need it most? What approaches have been rejected? 14:38 Ms HWA Kingston RISHWORTH (—) (): I'd like to thank the member for Corangamite for the question and for her tireless advocacy for families in her electorate. Of course, 1 July was a very important day for Australian families, because it meant more cost-of-living help started to flow for families right across the country but particularly in the member for Corangamite's electorate. That's 70,000 taxpayers getting a tax cut in Corangamite. From 1 July, also in the seat of Corangamite, 2,300 parents are going to benefit from more paid parental leave over the coming year. That is because families are now eligible for an extra two weeks of paid parental leave as a result of our government's actions. This means, in terms of helping with the cost of living, families now will receive over $20,000 in help at the time they take off to care for a newborn baby. But, of course, we're not stopping there. We are further expanding the scheme to 26 weeks and will legislate superannuation on top of it. Our changes have been widely welcomed by families. This week, I had the pleasure of meeting parents and hearing firsthand about our government's changes and what they mean to them. Jenny told me: 'We get extra time to adjust to being a family. It's not easy being a new parent. It's also good for mental health and recovering after birth.' Steph, mum of Billy, said: 'When Billy was born, we got some time off. If we have a second, it will help us exponentially. In fact, I can share this leave with my husband.' Also from Monday, 1.3 million low- and middle-income families are receiving a boost to their family payment, and every household will see their power bill cut by $300 and all Australians will benefit from cheaper medicines. I'm asked about what approaches have been rejected, and, yes, there are some approaches. It's the approaches by those opposite when they were last in government. Of course, they cut family payments, year on year, with indexation freezes, they called mothers taking two lots of paid parental leave 'double dippers' and they tried to cut paid parental leave over and over again. Now they are signalling that if they were in government they would do it all again, with the member for Hume saying he would cut so-called overspending, so-called unrestrained spending. What does that mean? Cuts to paid parental leave and cuts to family payments. This will mean families get less support and less help. While Labor stands up for working families, those opposite are planning how they are going to cut and to foist risky, expensive nuclear reactors onto us all. It is only our government, a Labor government, that will stand up for families and do the right thing. Fringe Benefits Tax 5045 14:41 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that a government he leads will not make any changes to the tax treatment of the tradie work ute— Government members interjecting— Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Sorry—any changes to the fringe benefits tax treatment of the work ute. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! To assist the House, because I think the member may have missed a part of the question, I'm going to ask the member to do the question again. I couldn't hear what he was saying. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Everyone's entitled to a fair go when people are asking their questions. That's to everyone in the chamber. The member for Lyne is entitled to ask a question, and he's going to ask his question. Dr GILLESPIE 72184 My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee millions of Australian tradies that a government he leads will not make any changes to the fringe benefits tax treatment of the tradies' work ute, the utility vehicle? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The laughing can cease immediately. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom is not helping. When the House comes to order, the member for Lyne has asked his question. 14:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler He had three cracks, and I'm still not sure what the question was. Let me just say this. The member should ask about what we are doing, not what we aren't doing. What we are doing is bringing forward legislation, before this parliament, across a range of measures—most importantly, the legislation that gave every one of the taxpayers in line a tax cut on Monday. It's legislation where the member for Lyne was part of an operation that said they would oppose it, before they knew what it was, and then said they'd roll it back and then said we should have an election over it. Education 5045 14:44 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese— Government members interjecting— Ms SWANSON 264170 When you're finished, gents. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will resume her seat. Members on my right, the member for O'Connor was interjecting during that question. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for O'Connor then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 We've just had an example of the member for Lyne asking a question where I wanted to show respect. The same courtesy is going to be shown to the member for Paterson, okay? The member for Paterson has the call and will begin her question again. Ms 264170 My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to invest in public education and support Australian workers, and what approaches has the government ruled out? 14:45 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank my friend the legendary member for Paterson for her question. The Liberal Party ripped billions of dollars out of public schools, and we're putting billions of dollars back in. On top of that, we're also funding capital works upgrades for public schools that sometimes haven't had them for years and years. For example, in the legendary member for Paterson's electorate we're upgrading the outdoor learning area at Rutherford Public School. In my friend the member for Chifley's electorate we're installing air conditioning and upgrading classrooms at Chifley College. In the member for Flynn's electorate we're building new classrooms at Woorabinda State School. And, in the member for Braddon's electorate, there will be new classrooms at Parklands High School in mighty Burnie. They're just a couple of examples. This year, the government is funding more than $215 million in capital works upgrades to public schools right across the country, most of them in regional Australia and in the outer suburbs of our big cities. All of them require plumbers, electricians, carpenters and other tradies—and all of them, as we know, got a tax cut this week. A plumber helping to install a new toilet block who's on 90 grand got a tax cut this week of almost $2,000. A chippy working on one of these projects on 100 grand got a tax cut this week of more than $2,000. And an electrician on 110 grand, installing new lighting on one of these projects, got a tax cut this week of more than $2,500. That's real cost-of-living relief: tax cuts for every taxpayer, and not just tradies; truckies as well, and teachers, nurses, childcare workers, everyone—well, almost everyone. There is one group of Australians who missed out and who didn't get a tax cut this week. They're those hardworking Aussies who work to keep our nation's small modular nuclear reactors working. And that's not because they don't deserve it; it's because they don't exist—not here, not anywhere, except Russia perhaps, which, incidentally, is where the opposition leader's economic policies come from: Howard and Costello replaced by hammer and sickle. We're cutting taxes and building classrooms, and, on the other side, what do they want to do? They want to shut supermarkets and build Soviet style nuclear reactors. The party of the forgotten people has forgotten who they are. International Students 5046 14:48 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for Education. Regional universities, including those in Indi, rely on international student revenue to educate the nurses, teachers and doctors of the future. Universities Australia and the Regional Universities Network are warning that any reduction in revenue would result in job cuts and the closure of regional campuses. Why is this government moving ahead with changes that undermine the ability of regional universities to educate the workforce that we need? 14:48 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Indi for her question, her passion and her interest in this area. I know she's a champion of regional universities, like she's a passionate supporter of our regions generally. Let me tell you that this is about supporting our regional universities and supporting international education. It's about making sure that we protect the integrity of the system that we have and making sure that we provide certainty and stability for the future. International education, I'm sure you and all members of the House would agree, is an important national asset. This is the biggest export that we don't dig out of the ground. It makes us money in the cities and in the regions. It creates jobs—and you touched on that in your question. But it also does something else. It makes us friends. When people come to Australia and study and they fall in love with this great country, then they take that love and affection back home with them. So it's important. As I said, we've got to protect the integrity of this system and its social licence to operate. Students have come back since the pandemic, but so have the shonks—the people that seek to undermine the integrity of the system. I know that you understand that. We had a yak about this yesterday. I know that you support the integrity measures that are part of this bill. What the bill also does is set levels or limits for individual universities, and my department is working with organisations like UA and RUN and universities right across the board on what those levels should be. I'm also consulting directly with universities to make sure that we get this right. It's about making sure that we provide universities with certainty and stability for managed growth over time. I should point you to some of the positive comments that have been made, for example, by La Trobe University. I know that they work in your part of Australia, Dr Haines, and they have welcomed the certainty that this framework could provide. I should point to the comments that the Chancellor of the University of Queensland has made in support of this legislation—Peter Varghese, a man whom I think has the respect of all members of this House. In addition to that, the Australian Technology Network of Universities—which represents Deakin, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Newcastle University, Curtin, the University of Technology Sydney, and the University of South Australia—indicated its support. I want to make sure I get this right. I know that you've identified concerns with the bill; so have other members of the crossbench. I'm keen to work with you and I'm keen to work with senators on this bill to make sure that we get it right and make sure, for our universities and our other tertiary education providers who educate not just Australians but people from overseas, that we set this important industry up for the future. National Disability Insurance Scheme 5047 14:51 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What benefits will NDIS workers begin to receive this week? What are the risks of delaying the passage of Labor's legislation to reform the NDIS and ensure its ongoing sustainability? What will be the cost to the Australian taxpayer? 14:52 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Bean for his question. There are five bits of good news for disability workers, the 400,000 people who work in the NDIS, and I'd like to acknowledge their great work. First of all, all 400,000 are getting a tax cut—great! For all of those on the award, which is most of them, they've had a 15 per cent increase in wages since Labor was elected—that's good! They're going to access cheaper medicines. That has got to be a plus. Their superannuation has gone up—great! And, of course, they're getting energy relief. So that's five bits of good news for people who do a brilliant job. But there are problems. There are problems with the sustainability of the scheme which undermine all the good work all these good people do. Ms Ley 00AMN Maybe the design of the scheme is the reason for the problems. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. She was removed yesterday; I'll do it again today. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG What we see is that the NDIS is growing but it's growing too fast. I know members of the opposition understand that. They just couldn't do anything about it. But they know that problem. Now, the issue is it is growing too fast. So Labor has some propositions to help restrain the rate of growth. We've got a bill in the parliament. The Senate has had it for 12 weeks. They've had it for 12 weeks. The problem is that they want to now delay it for another eight weeks. This is the problem. Sometimes, you can delay things in the Senate and, really, the sun comes up the next day and the chicken still lays eggs. But sometimes things get delayed in the Senate which have a cost. This legislation, if it's delayed, is, according to the actuary, going to cost people on the scheme and it's going to cost taxpayers a billion dollars in waste—a billion dollars. The reason it's going to cost a billion dollars is that the Liberals need more time to ask questions. But I want to put this to the House and the backbench of the coalition, who don't always get to hear what's going on—these are the questions which your senators need eight weeks to answer, but I think even the group opposite could answer this quicker than in eight weeks: do you think it is right that people can claim tarot cards and clairvoyance on the scheme? You don't need eight weeks to work that out. Do you think that it should take eight weeks to work out if people should be able to get cuddle therapy? Of course you don't. But, for whatever reason, you are taking eight weeks and a billion dollars to answer obvious questions. Mr Jones A9B Defender of cuddles! The SPEAKER 53517 The Assistant Treasurer is warned. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it's on relevance. It's an obvious point of order because don't forget that this minister is the architect of the scheme— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The problem with that, Leader of the Opposition, is it's an abuse of the process of a point of order. If it was anyone else, action would be taken. To abuse the point of order process goes down a very bad path, and I don't want that to happen in question time or for it to continue. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG To be fair, I don't think cuddle therapy should be on the NDIS, but I think someone should give the Leader of the Opposition a cuddle after the week he's had! The fact of the matter is—and I'll just say this once—there's a billion dollars being wasted; 60,000 child participants could get a year's support. Why are you so oxygen-stealingly dumb to waste time on a billion dollars! Shame on all of you! (Time expired) First Nations Australians 5047 14:56 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Prime Minister. On 9 November 2020, in this place, the Prime Minister said: The voice must be followed by truth-telling, because, until we acknowledge the reality of our history, we are shackled to its demons. And truth must be followed by a makarrata commission. Makarrata is about conflict resolution, justice and, crucially, self-determination. It's a path to a national treaty … Is this still the Prime Minister's position? 14:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The member for Hughes has answered her own question in the nature of the question and in the words that were there. Housing 5048 14:57 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Thank you— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. The member for Tangney will be shown the same courtesy as every other member today. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Herbert then left the chamber . The SPEAKER 53517 When I'm talking about courtesy, that is not the time to interject. Mr LIM 300130 My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is Labor's Homes for Australia plan helping address housing affordability, and what is standing in its way? 14:58 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank our terrific member for Tangney, and the member for Tangney would know that 87,000 people in his electorate this week got a tax cut to help them with the cost of living. He also knows housing affordability is a serious issue in his electorate and, indeed, around the country after what we inherited from those opposite when it comes to the housing challenges. We need to build more homes in Australia. We don't have enough homes and we haven't had enough homes for a long time because of what we inherited from those opposite. That's why we have a national housing target to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. We've backed up this ambitious target with $32 billion in new housing initiatives from the federal government, on top of what the states and territories are doing. This $32 billion Homes for Australia plan will help us train more tradies, turbocharge construction and streamline planning to build the homes that Australia needs. We're working with all the tiers of government, including some of the local government people that are here today. We're also working with the state governments, the construction sector and the community housing sector to meet this shared national target. We all have to have our shoulder to the wheel if we're going to achieve this target. It is ambitious, but we need to be ambitious to turn around the housing challenges. We know that boosting supply is the answer to this. Indeed, our historic National Cabinet meeting in August last year made some decisions around planning and zoning and reforms that will help with that. The independent analysis of our supply plan by the Grattan Institute found that it would put significant downward pressure on rents that could save renters $32 billion in payments, when it comes to rents. That's how you deliver real cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up energy prices with risky nuclear reactors—and it's also not by blocking housing legislation in the parliament. What have we seen again in the last week or so? We have seen those opposite, with their friends in the Greens political party, block yet more housing in the Senate. Indeed, they want to block homes of every kind—to block social and affordable homes, as when those opposite blocked the Housing Australia Future Fund and delayed it, with the help of the Greens, for months. We could have homes under construction today under the Housing Australia Future Fund, if it wasn't for those opposite and the Greens. Indeed, they want to block our Help to Buy scheme. The Prime Minister said today that we've got support from the Queensland LNP for a shared-equity scheme, but we've also had it from the Liberal state premier in Tasmania and the former Liberal premier in New South Wales, who all support shared-equity schemes. But apparently those opposite don't support shared equity anymore. We want to build more homes for people to buy, more homes for people to rent and more homes for Australians that need a safe place each night. Housing 5048 15:01 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith Prime Minister, the Greens will pass your build-to-rent plan if Labor guarantees, in law, that 100 per cent of the apartments built under this scheme are genuinely affordable. But an analysis of build-to-rent projects in Sydney found that rents for a two-bedroom apartment were 27 per cent above market rent, which means a two-bedroom apartment in Marrickville, under Labor's scheme, could be over a thousand dollars extra a week in rent. Will Labor work with the Greens to ensure tax handouts don't go to developers to build apartments that no-one can afford? 15:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The Greens political party, of course, did vote with the coalition to delay the Housing Australia Future Fund, and they did vote with the coalition to block build-to-rent, just in the last fortnight. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Griffith has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 That would have meant 160,000 new affordable rental homes as a result, and they voted against it. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Griffith will cease interjecting or be warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 I mean, if the Leader of the Opposition votes with the Greens any more times, he's going to have to get a hyphen in his surname! It just keeps going. You guys, over in the Senate, blocked build-to-rent, delayed the Housing Australia Future Fund and voted with the coalition to block Help to Buy, which is sitting in the Senate as well. Of course, one of my local members in Grayndler has claimed, as to going forward with the Minns Labor government's efforts to build more housing in Sydney, that the Greens member for Balmain is out there saying that building more homes is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the housing crisis. It is unbelievable that they oppose every single measure. Indeed, the member for Griffith is supporting a campaign against new homes. He claimed, on Insiders,that planning changes that allow more housing won't change a thing. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Griffith is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 He went on to say, 'That won't change a thing, because what we know right now is that the planning system is not the barrier to fixing the housing crisis.' I tell you what: when you look at each of the states and all of our capital cities, we know that planning is a big problem. But, of course, one of his colleagues—the member for Brisbane, who's not here today—has opposed an apartment building in his inner-city electorate because it would, to quote him, 'have a substantive impact on the views of existing nearby residents', and then, where there's another development that would turn an empty sand and gravel factory into 381 apartments, it's because there would be too many car parks associated with it. He is also concerned that the height of the building would impact the 'unique character of this heritage neighbourhood'. And the member for Brisbane's justification for opposing this very sensible build-to-rent scheme was that developers would build the buildings. That's what they put in their media release. Local Government 5049 15:04 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support local government? How is this different from other approaches? 15:05 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for McEwen for his question and note that, because of his advocacy, 76,000 taxpayers in his electorate will be getting a tax cut. I say a massive thankyou to him for taking me to his electorate, where we met with the Macedon Ranges council to see the work that they're doing for their communities. Labor's new tax cuts have benefited every working Australian, from local government workers in our biggest cities to those who work in the most remote parts of Australia. There are 546 councils across our country. They employ almost 200,000 people across 400 different occupations. Local governments support communities in every part of our nation, and, this week, nearly 1,200 delegates from the local government sector have descended upon Canberra for their national general assembly. Tomorrow, over 800 of those delegates will hear from government ministers at the Australian Council of Local Government. This week, I'll be meeting with close to 39 local councils who have told me about some of the challenges facing their communities. From this week, people across regional Australia have seen an increase in their pay packets, because, on this side of the House, we believe that people should earn more and keep more of what they earn. Labor's tax cuts will see a water and sewer apprentice working in the Hunter receive an additional $1,179 in their annual salary. On Christmas Island, one of our most remote local governments, off the coast of WA, a recreational services manager earning $100,000 will see a tax cut of $2,179. Is the message from those opposite that they do not support hardworking council officers earning more and keeping more of what they earn? On this side of the House, we value what they do. We acknowledge their vital contribution to our communities and we thank them for it. That is a very stark difference from those opposite, who froze indexation on financial assistance grants for three years, which has had a substantial impact on local councils' budgets. It's had a substantial impact on the maintenance of council assets, and it's had a substantial impact on what communities can expect from their local councils. Labor's new plan is delivering tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. It's helping local councils put more money in the pockets of their workers. That's how you deliver real cost-of-living relief—not a risky, expensive nuclear reactor plan. Can I acknowledge the councillors, the mayors and the CEOs who have come into this building this week and engaged with all members of this place, including with the government, and I say a big thankyou to them for the work that they do on behalf of communities right across this country. Energy 5050 15:08 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies My question is to the Prime Minister. This week, iconic Australian businessman Dick Smith has placed advertisements in national papers stating the following: No other country has, or is planning to operate their energy systems entirely on wind, solar and storage … Why is the Prime Minister letting his ideological obsession get in the way of letting Australia join the rest of the world in adopting clean, cheap and reliable nuclear power? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fremantle is warned. 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Menzies for his question, but, of course, our intention isn't to have 100 per cent renewables either. We know that firming capacity— Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 But 98 per cent is pretty close! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fairfax— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Treasurer! I'm dealing with matters before the House. The member for Fairfax sits right near me. He definitely doesn't need to have that decibel. He's been interjecting all throughout the week. He's going to remain here, but he's— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're going to put him on a warning. You're on a warning, and that means, like the member for Hume, who's also on a warning— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, and we're going to hear from the Prime Minister in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm pro compassion, Mr Speaker. The fact is we understand that gas, for example, plays an important role in firming up renewables. I know Dick Smith. I like Dick Smith. He's a good fellow, and he's made a great contribution to Australia. What he knows is that for longer than he's been on this earth, I think, the coalition have been promising nuclear reactors. They've been promising them since 1952! That's when the then South Australian Liberal Premier said, 'A nuclear plant could be developed here in the next 10 years.' And then we get to 1969, where John Gorton said: … we shall, during the next Parliament, take Australia into the atomic age by beginning the construction of an atomic plant at Jervis Bay, to generate electricity. The Illawarra Mercury reported in 1970 that the Jervis Bay plant would be the first of 20 atomic plants, costing more than $2 billion to be built in Australia by 1990. Their idea of facing the future is moving on from Menzies to Gorton. The Liberals have been so obsessed with the nukes that the only costings we have are in pounds, shillings and pence, because we haven't got anything else from this mob. We haven't got anything else in all that time. You wouldn't think that nuclear reactors and supermarkets have much in common, but let me tell you what they have in common: they are both shambles from those opposite. Both of them are causing divisions among those opposite, including, of course, when they're all at the Queensland LNP conference on the weekend, where there will be no mention of it. 'Nuclear' will be the word that they dare not speak its name. We know, as well, that out of both of them, it's the case that the Nats are pretty happy about how it's going, the economic policy, which is being led by the National Party—who, to be fair, have always had a touch of socialism about them, a touch of government intervention. But for the party who used to talk about markets and used to talk about business, they have strayed so far away from it. They're opposing measures that were there in the budget. The truth is that both of the coalition policies will mean bigger power bills and bigger grocery bills, and, every time this bloke has a thought, Australians would end up paying more. (Time expired) Medicare 5051 15:12 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to strengthen Medicare and make medicines cheaper? How does this compare to the past decade of cuts and neglect? 15:12 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Macnamara for his question. He is a great local member and a fierce advocate for better healthcare services in his electorate in South Melbourne. He also understands the deep contrast between our record in just two years of strengthening Medicare and the sorry record of those opposite over a decade of cuts and neglect, which all began with the Leader of the Opposition's horror health budget in 2014. Nonetheless, the member for Macnamara asked me for a comparison. Well, we have put an additional $13 billion on the table to provide more support for our hardworking public hospitals. We know they're under pressure and we want to provide them with more help. By contrast, the Leader of the Opposition tried to cut $50 billion from public hospitals when he was the health minister. On this side, we've tripled the bulk-billing incentive for GP visits, something the College of GPs called a 'game changer'. In the month of May alone that delivered an additional 900,000 free visits to the doctor. What did they do? The Leader of the Opposition tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. He said there were too many free Medicare services—and you wonder why bulk-billing was in freefall when we came to government! On this side, we've rolled out dozens of Medicare urgent care clinics. They are open seven days a week, extended hours, available to walk-in patients and, importantly, they are fully bulk-billed. The member for Macnamara and I recently visited one in his electorate, the South Melbourne urgent care clinic. It has already seen more than 16,000 patients, delivering terrific care and taking pressure off the ED at the Alfred Hospital across the road. On that side, what new models of care did they deliver in nine years? Absolutely none. We have made medicines cheaper for pensioners, cheaper for concession cardholders, cheaper for general patients, already saving patients more than $400 million. A few weeks ago, the member for Macnamara and I visited a terrific pharmacy, the Laird's Pharmacy at Elwood, and spoke to Elizabeth Foo there about her beautiful service. We also talked to her about our latest measure to make medicines cheaper, freezing the price of PBS scripts for up to five years. What did he do? He tried to make medicines more expensive by jacking up the price of scripts by up to $5. So I say, at the end of this parliamentary session, let's compare the pair: on this side, a hard-working government trying to strengthen Medicare; on that side, a Leader of the Opposition who has only ever tried to wreck it. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. COMMITTEES 5051 COMMITTEES Government Response to Report 5051 15:16 The SPEAKER 53517 For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of the status of government responses to committee reports as of 2 July 2024. The schedule will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows— Speaker's Schedule of the Status of Government Responses to Committee Reports As at 2 July 2024 Speaker's Schedule of the Status of Government Responses to Committee Reports The Speaker's schedule to the House of Representatives on the status of government responses to committee reports is presented at six monthly intervals, usually in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings. The last schedule was presented in the House on 30 November 2023. The schedule presents a list of committee reports that contain recommendations requiring a government response. Government responses received during the period are included in the schedule and the report it relates to is then removed from subsequent schedules. The timeframe for government responses to committee reports in this schedule is determined by the resolution adopted by the House on 29 September 2010, in which government responses to House and Joint committee reports are required within a six month period from the presentation of the report in the House. The Senate has resolved to require government responses to Senate and Joint committee reports within three months of a report being tabled.[1] This schedule does not list reports that do not require a government response. In the past, the practice was to include all reports tabled in the Speaker's schedule. However, the intent of this schedule is to provide an update to the House on the status of government responses to committee reports.[2] The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations that are wider than the provision of the bill and would therefore be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to bill inquiry reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are usually reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' regular scrutiny reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments are not listed, as the timeframe for a response is specified in correspondence to the relevant minister. Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report. Executive Minutes are included in this schedule and are listed as (Partial response). The table below provides a summary of government responses received and outstanding to committee reports of the 44th to 47th Parliaments inclusive: The following table lists responses received (since tabling of the last schedule on 30 November 2023) and outstanding (as at 2 July 2024): Notes [*]Presented out of session [ 1 ]This practice has arisen from a Senate resolution of 14 March 1973, in which the Senate declared its opinion that the government should provide a response to committee reports within three months of tabling. Successive governments have affirmed their commitment to providing such responses. [ 2 ]The Liaison Committee of Chairs and Deputy Chairs agreed at its meeting of June 2023 to recommend removal of all outstanding government responses for House or Joint committee reports presented prior to the commencement of the 46th Parliament (2 July 2019), unless the relevant committee's successor resolved to retain those reports on the schedule. This schedule is reflective of those removals or resolutions to retain the relevant reports. [ i ]The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate or to the President or Speaker (if presented earlier out of session). Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date. [ ii ]If the source for the government response date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote. [ iii ]The Government has undertaken to respond to committee reports within a six-month period—see House of Representatives Standing Orders, resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six-month period. The period from when the 44th Parliament was prorogued on 9 May 2016 to the commencement of the 45th Parliament on 30 August 2016 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 45th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2019 to the commencement of the 46th Parliament on 2 July 2019 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 46th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2022 to the commencement of the 47th Parliament on 26 July 2022 is not included in the response period. [iv ]On 1 July 2023, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) transitioned into the new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Accordingly, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity ceased to exist. The oversight of the NACC is undertaken as of that date by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. DOCUMENTS 5061 DOCUMENTS Presentation 5061 15:16 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. BUSINESS 5061 BUSINESS Leave Of Absence 5061 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 5061 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 5061 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The cost of living crisis under this weak and incompetent Government. 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— 15:17 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Well, this has been an interesting sitting fortnight. We have seen this afternoon the Prime Minister again refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. We know that at the moment the Australian public are really doing it tough. There is no hiding it, and the government can't deny it. As you go around the country and visit regional areas, outer metropolitan areas, and as you talk to people in the cities, people say they have massive increases in their bills—their electricity bills, their gas bills. Their mortgages are up. We know that for every family at the moment it is a struggle to put food on the table, but it wasn't like this two years ago. It wasn't like this two years ago because we had a capable, competent government that managed the economy. During the course of COVID we provided support to the Australian people but before that we made decisions in subsequent budgets which made it easier not harder for families yet we know that in three budgets now, the government has had the opportunity to take decisions, to deal with what was on the horizon. They had an understanding of what was happening in international markets. They knew what was happening with inflation. They knew what was happening with the energy markets and instead of taking prudent decisions which would put downward pressure on inflation and therefore downward pressure on interest rates, this government has taken decisions to spend more and more money, which has done the complete opposite. In spending an additional $315 billion, they drive up inflation. It is important for Australian families to hear this very clear message: the reason that interest rates are high in this country and that they are staying high and that the Reserve Bank governor warns that they may go higher is that inflation is high. Why is inflation high? It's because government is spending money at a federal and state level and pumping that money into the economy, which is driving up inflation. Farmers and manufacturers of food and all of the items that you use in your house or in your small business—all of them are facing the same pressure that you are when you get your electricity bills and your gas bills through the mail or by email. This is why, when you go to Coles and Woolies or to an IGA, you're seeing much higher prices. The statistics show an 11.4 per cent increase in grocery prices, but it's much higher than that for the average basket. The reason is that all of the people involved in the production of that food are facing massive increases in their electricity bills because of the Albanese government's renewables-only policy. They're storing food in coldrooms, and the power bill has doubled or trebled. All of that cost is being passed on to you as a consumer, and that is fuelling inflation. We know that, not just in this period of government but in past periods of government, Labor don't manage the economy well. None of them have been involved in small business, none of them have been involved in managing staff, none of them have been involved in presiding over business decisions that will help run an economy, and it shows in every single budget. When we look at the situation, we know that we need to spend money prudently. We know that we need to provide support to those who can't provide support to themselves. We know—and it's a true ethos of our party, as well—that we provide support to people and help them keep more of their money as they work harder. We know that, for our party, we support choice and that we want people to be able to go into a free market and to exercise their choice to do so in an affordable way. When we make decisions in budgets, as we have done in governments before and as we will do after the next election, we will make decisions to get our country back on track. We will make decisions that will put downward pressure on inflation. We will spend prudently. And, where there is a distortionary impact in the market that is adversely affecting consumers, we will address that concern. In the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Canada and in Europe, they all have divestment powers where there is market competition that is being used in a way that is detrimental to consumers and others, including farmers, in the supply chain. In the last parliament, there was a bipartisan position in relation to divestiture for energy companies that were demonstrated to have market power and a concentration of market share which resulted in higher prices or a distortion to the market and therefore loss of competition and higher prices for consumers. There's nothing controversial in that, but the Prime Minister this week dismissed it out of hand. I say to the Prime Minister that our parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party, the coalition, are standing with consumers in this debate, and we're standing against duopolies in circumstances where they are misusing their market power. There's a heavy responsibility that comes to businesses with a turnover of more than $5 million a year—think Coles, Woolworth, Aldi and Bunnings. Those companies have a very important role to play in the economy, but we are not going to stand by, as the party of small business, as the party that has the economic management runs on the board, and allow the market to be distorted in a way where consumers are adversely affected. There is nothing controversial in that. All of these experts who want to comment about what the Liberal Party stands for and the Menzies tradition—Robert Menzies was in favour of small business. Robert Menzies was in favour of families. Robert Menzies was in favour of tradies. Robert Menzies was in favour of all of those people who worked hard in the economy, and his judgement was that big business should take care of itself and that we should provide an environment in which it can thrive, but not to the disadvantage of those smaller, forgotten Australians. The party that I lead will stand up for the forgotten Australians, because this government has left millions of Australians behind. This government has ramped up interest rates to a point where people are paying $35,000 more for their mortgages. This Albanese government has driven up the cost of every element of your budget. We will work hard to make life affordable again. We've taken a decision, in relation to this matter, to say to Coles and Woolworths, for example, in a market where they have an existing store and they've used their balance sheet to buy up four or five sites that might be vacant land or have development opportunity, and where a competitor may set up in competition and that particular company has bought each of those sites—not because they're a property developer or because they have an interest in building units or developing retail spaces—that those supermarkets are doing that so they can stop competitors coming into that marketplace. Anybody who believes that calling out that kind of behaviour is against the values of the Liberal Party has no comprehension of the background or, indeed, the future of this party. Our party will make sure that markets operate in a fair way, not just to Coles and Woolies but to everybody else in the marketplace—to the suppliers, the farmers and the consumers. We're not about investing into a market where we have a disproportionate amount of power exerted to the disadvantage of those who are powerless. That's not what our party is about, and I will make sure that our party continues to stand up for everyday Australians. We have an energy policy that is about bringing down prices. It's about making sure that as we decarbonise we can have greener electricity, and it's about making sure that we have reliable and consistent power, because if we do that we can have a modern economy. If we help and not hinder through our budget process, for all of those entrepreneurs, all of those families, all of those who strive for more for their generation and the next, that is how we will continue to build this great country. There's a lot of uncertainty in the world at the moment, but we need a strong and secure country. We need to make sure that we have the strength of leadership to stand up for the forgotten Australians. We need to say to everyday Australians that there is a better way. Everyday Australians know now, as they sit around the kitchen table of a night-time, that the last two years have been very hard and it's getting harder. Three more years of a Labor government will make it unbearable. For families who are thinking about selling their house because they can't afford to pay their mortgage, for families who are losing their private health insurance or taking their kids out of school because they can't afford to pay the fees, and for families who can't afford to pay the rego or can't afford to buy a cut of steak and are either missing out on the consumption of meat altogether or buying mince or cheaper cuts, there is a better way. At the next election, there will be a very stark choice between the Labor Party led by Anthony Albanese—three more dark years of economic failure—and a much brighter future under a coalition government. 15:28 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth They used to say the Leader of the Opposition was all tip and no iceberg. Now I say he's all tip and no isotope. There are no details on any of his plans, there are no clear costings on anything he puts forward in this place or out in the public, and he can't tell the Australian people when his nuclear reactors will arrive. I can tell the Australian people when they got their tax cut. It was on 1 July. The Leader of the Opposition can't tell us, for supermarket workers, when he will nationalise their workplaces or how much they will be paid under his nationalised supermarkets. I can tell those workers when they got an increase in the award wage. That happened on 1 July. The Leader of the Opposition can't tell Australians how much power bills will go up under his costly reactor plan. I can tell Australians that they will get power bill relief starting from 1 July. The Leader of the Opposition also can't tell Australians how many jobs there will be in his reactors. I can tell every working Australian that they got more paid parental leave, starting on 1 July, with an additional two weeks. What we've seen from those opposite is that they've gone from free marketeers to angry Marxists. They say that they believe in the free market, except when it comes to supermarkets. They want the free market except when it comes to nuclear. It's something that they said stacks up and will be cost-effective—so cost-effective that they want the Australian people to write a big blank cheque for their nuclear reactor obsession. I saw a lecture by the Leader of the Opposition saying, if he was Prime Minister, he would spend prudently. Well, wouldn't it have been nice if he started spending prudently when he was sitting around the cabinet table for nine years, as they racked up billions of dollars after billions of dollars, leaving Australians with a trillion dollars of debt. If that's what the Leader of the Opposition says is 'spending prudently', then Australians should be very, very worried. When it comes to the lectures, and we just received from the Leader of the Opposition on bipartisanship, the Australian people see what the Leader of the Opposition does in this place every day and every week, and he does not act in a bipartisan manner. So often they invoke Robert Menzies. Well, I'd encourage the Leader of the Opposition to go back and think: 'Would Robert Menzies have stood by silently, encouraging secret ministries? Would Robert Menzies have stood by and said, "Yes, a trillion dollars of debt is the right way to go"? Would Robert Menzies have said we need to nationalise our supermarkets and nationalise our electricity grid?' It's an incredible place for the opposition to find themselves at the end of this winter sitting. But let us have a look through the experience that the Leader of the Opposition has had over the course of these six months as we get here to the middle of the year. What is really clear is that he is not a serious parliamentarian, nor is he a serious person putting himself forward to be Prime Minister. We saw, on 7 January this year, further revelations about his work to undermine, in cabinet, the fair share of the GST for Western Australia. We saw, on 11 January this year, the Leader of the Opposition coming out of the block strong, calling for a boycott of Woolworths, wanting 200,000 people to lose their jobs. We had the Leader of the Opposition give his strong backing to his deputy when his deputy said that they would oppose the tax changes before they'd even seen them. He was so strong in backing his deputy that he then came into this place and voted for those tax changes! That was January. Then we get to February, and an impressive thing happened. We saw a number of members of the coalition share their own thoughts about one another in a small ABC program called Nemesis. We saw Malcolm Turnbull—and people in this room served in his cabinet. To quote the Sydney Morning Herald, 'Malcolm Turnbull described Peter Dutton as a thug.' This was the former leader of the Liberal and National parties, the former Prime Minister they chose. He also warned as to why he spent so much of his energy as Prime Minister trying to stop the Leader of the Opposition ever becoming Prime Minister. Malcolm Turnbull said: I thought Dutton would run off to the right, and I thought he would do a lot of damage as prime minister of Australia in a short period. And the damage that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to do from opposition is a good indication of that. We saw, on 7 February, as Nemesis rolled out, the Leader of the Opposition being interviewed on the ABC 7.30 program to tidy a few things up. He assured us there would be a new tax policy before the next election, but he refused to provide any details. I'll come back to that. We then get into April. The Leader of the Opposition stays in his fact based comfort zone where he says that Australia is the only G20 country without nuclear power. When he says 'G20', I don't know what he's referring to. There are, in fact, five countries—Australia is one of them—that do not have nuclear energy. Australia doesn't. Germany doesn't. Italy doesn't. Indonesia doesn't. And Saudi Arabia doesn't. They are all members of the G20. Sticking into his fact based principles, the Leader of the Opposition showed what great credentials he has. On 11 April, he said we're getting the 'closing down of Australian manufacturing'. Again, he misses the fact. There are 80,000 new manufacturing jobs under this government. We also saw some incredible comments from the Leader of the Opposition when he made some terrible comparisons to the Port Arthur massacre. Even members of his own side were questioning whether that was a wise judgement. That was, again, a very interesting decision from the Leader of the Opposition. In April, he thought he would make one more decision. His staff members claimed some $6,000 of allowances so that the Leader of the Opposition could attend a private birthday party. The only good thing about that was that it was a visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Perth; the bad bit was that he only spent 45 minutes there. In April we saw the Leader of the Opposition again choose to back Elon Musk over the Australian government—a very interesting choice. On 16 May we got the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, without a single costing for any of his budget initiatives. On 8 June the Leader of the Opposition said we should pull Australia out of the Paris climate agreements, and on 16 June we learned that those opposite would indeed slug Australian taxpayers with the bill for their entire nuclear plan. Finally, we see the truth. Now, we know they're all over the place when it comes to the economy. While the Leader of the Opposition came out and said they were going to slug Australian taxpayers for their nuclear plan, just one month earlier—with not even a full month in between—we had the shadow Treasurer ruling out subsidies for nuclear power. With the carefully coordinated policy development happening in the coalition, we then saw the shadow Treasurer make a 'shambolic' post-budget appearance talking about his views on the migration numbers. All the way back in February, the Leader of the Opposition promised us that we'd have a tax plan, but last week, when he was speaking to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, he said that it would be too costly to propose tax cuts now, and he went on to argue that he would need the help of Treasury to formulate his own tax policies. Obviously, they've got the A-team over there, as the Treasurer has pointed out a number of times, but the biggest endorsement the shadow Treasurer gets from the Leader of the Opposition is that he's 'not incompetent'—such warm and kind endorsements of the senior members of his team! We do have a good idea of what those opposite are proposing to the Australian people. They have a tax policy to roll back tax cuts. They have an IR policy that's about lowering wages. They have a fiscal strategy that will rack up debt for their nuclear reactors. They have a housing policy that will wreck the superannuation of millions of Australians. They have a health policy that will destroy Medicare. And they have a nuclear reactor policy of which the only practical outcome will be that it jacks up power prices. I'm really proud of what we've done in this government. We're not waiting until 2050. We've already ensured a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the grid, with 330,000 new rooftop solar installations last year. We've green-lit 50 renewable projects since the last election, and our tax cuts, which came into effect on 1 July, mean that 13.6 million Australians are getting a tax cut. That's 2.9 million more Australians than would have got a tax cut under the old plan that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed when he sat around the cabinet table. Further, 5.8 million women—90 per cent of women taxpayers—will now receive a bigger tax cut than they would have got under the Leader of the Opposition's plan. Even in the electorate of Dickson, 79,000 Australians will get a tax cut, with an average of $1,604 for those— (Time expired) 15:38 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia We are now more than two years into a Labor government, and Australians are facing a bleak future due to weak leadership. The promise of progress and stability has been overshadowed by their ineffective governance. Labor's lack of strong and decisive action has contributed to the growing challenges our nation faces today. Before the 2022 election, Australians were told that, under a Labor government, life would be easier. The Prime Minister preached a Labor utopia of cheaper power, better roads and affordable housing. We know, and the hard-working Australians and small businesses know, that was nothing more than another Labor con job. Every single day, my electorate offices in Capricornia receive calls from locals who are struggling to make ends meet. They are finding it increasingly difficult to afford basic life essentials, such as food and adequate housing. The choice between eating a meal and turning on the heating to stay warm has become a harsh reality for many. The people of Capricornia are sinking deeper into a cost-of-living crisis. It's a direct result of the weak and incompetent leadership of the current government. Despite the mounting challenges, there has not been a single effective measure implemented to relieve the economic pressure Australians are facing. Our communities are bearing the brunt of these failures and it's time for the government to recognise the severity of the situation and take decisive action to address this crisis. Three budgets have been delivered since those opposite were elected in 2022, yet the cost of essentials continues to rise. Food prices have increased by more than 11 per cent, housing by 14 per cent and power prices by over 21 per cent. Where is the promised $275 reduction in power bills for my constituents? Instead, in some areas in Australia, the typical household is now paying over $1,000 more each year. This is evidence that Labor has failed to provide the cost-of-living relief that they claimed they would deliver at each and every budget. Their $315 billion in extra spending is fuelling the fire and driving up inflation. Those in my electorate of Capricornia have gained nothing from this government. They're digging deeper into their pockets to pay for Labor's overspending. Capricornians are proud of their resource-rich region—from exporting coal to farming. It's prime agricultural land that feeds both our nation and others worldwide. My constituents generate wealth that should drive economic growth and security; however, this Labor government is draining the regions through higher taxes and increased red tape. Despite the billions generated from regional Australia, the people in Capricornia are not seeing relief from cost-of-living pressures or improvements in critical infrastructure. The only abundance delivered by Labor is an abundance of cuts to crucial funding and delays in vital projects—projects like Queensland Beef Corridor's road network, which would significantly improve the safety of those who travel the roads to deliver our high-value commodities to market And there was the fight we undertook to ensure that the Rockhampton Ring Road wouldn't be thrown on the scrapheap. Every day is a fight to ensure those in Capricornia are receiving their fair share. But it's not just me who is sounding the alarm on this failed government. Independent economist Chris Richardson said in the Australian: 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 too little stuff. With an election creeping up on us, now is the time for Australians to take on a government which has the best interest of the nation at heart—not a government set on ideologies like a reckless renewable-only policy, which is driving up the cost of electricity and destroying the very thing they are attempting to save: the environment. A coalition government would deliver cheap, clean and consistent power from our visionary plan for nuclear energy. Australians will be given a choice in the coming months; there will be the choice to elect a government which can actually deliver on cost-of-living relief, rebuild our nation's manufacturers and restore them to powerhouses—a government which will lift up small businesses and cut red tape. This is a choice to elect a government which will restore the great Australian dream of home ownership. At the next election, the choice will be clear: continue with another term of chaos and crisis, or have a government led by someone who has the leadership and character to drive our nation forward. 15:42 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I will point out that there was a comment from the opposition leader about the Prime Minister putting up interest rates. Hasn't he been in this place for more than 20 years? I think we understand that we have the Reserve Bank of Australia, which is an independent institution. It's at arms-length from the government for a reason, and that's because we need to make sure we keep the economy in check and that there are checks and balances in our economy. I recognise that households are under pressure right now; I recognise that, and I know that households are doing it tough. But this is the reason why the Albanese Labor government wants to make sure that workers earn more and keep more of what they earn. What was asked during the federal election campaign was: is the opposition leader prepared to back minimum-wage workers by increasing their wages by $1 an hour? He said no. What did our now Prime Minister of Australia say? 'Absolutely.' Governments make difficult decisions. Prior to the pandemic, tax cuts were legislated for 1 July, and these tax cuts were going to be only for the richest of Australians. The Albanese Labor government did the hard work of looking at these tax cuts and what would be fairer and equitable—but also not inflationary. So it's interesting when I hear from those on the other side that we're overspending but that we're also not helping enough. Which one is it? I recognise that balancing the economy is a delicate act, and I am very proud of our Treasurer of Australia, who has been making really important decisions. I am excited that in my electorate of Swan there is a tax cut for every taxpayer. That's 94,000 people, and 77,000 of them will receive a bigger tax cut because of Labor. Every household in Australia will be getting a $300 electricity bill relief, and in Western Australia we're getting $700 thanks to the Cook and Albanese Labor governments working together. That's what Western Australians voted for in the last election. They wanted to see the federal and state Labor parties working together. We're also talking about energy. I recognise that energy is a significant cost in household bills, and what did we have for 10 years under the coalition? There were 22 energy policies. Imagine if we had increased our renewable energy targets, because guess what happens when there is a war in the world such as what's happening in Ukraine? The sun and the wind— Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 You're speaking to someone who is an engineer that has worked in decarbonisation for 12 years. I will let you know that I have consulted to the ASX 200 on what the most economic options are for energy transition, and guess what? It's not nuclear. It is not nuclear because of timeframes, costs, waste and risk. This is something that I have seen time and time again. I don't know why the coalition is wanting to pick a fight on nuclear. Really? Is this how desperate you guys are? In case of emergency, I'm going to reach for the nuclear option! This is not what companies are looking at. This is something that's not going to help any households in the next 15 years. It's not. I am really excited about what we're trying to achieve. In some of the most remote mine sites in Australia we're seeing wind and solar energy being used, and you're right—we need to make sure that we have firming. We will be seeing that being used with gas, but soon we'll also see batteries, and there is also a role for pumped hydro. If you want to have a fight with me about renewable energy and the decarbonisation that we're going to take Australia on, bring it on, I say! But imagine what would have happened if we had acted 10 years ago. Households would have been so much better off. The truth is that we have had 10 years of mismanagement. We are cleaning up the mess of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott Liberal governments, and we're working hard every day to make a real and positive difference to homes and families. 15:47 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. It has now been two years since the Albanese Labor government was elected. Before the election on 17 March 2022, Anthony Albanese said, 'A Labor government will lower the cost of living.' Let's look at how that has gone over the last two years, because we are now in a cost-of-living crisis and have been for almost the entirety of this government's term. Last week, we again saw headline inflation rise to five per cent and core inflation to 4.4 per cent. Core inflation has now increased four months in a row. It is at its highest level this year. The Labor government's continued failure to get inflation under control is leading to the very real prospect of a rate increase in August. This will then be the 13th under Labor's watch—the 13th in just over two years. I think it's very important that the link between inflation and interest rates and the government's spending is clearly set out. The Reserve Bank raises interest rates when it is not satisfied with the way this government has performed with fiscal policy. This government, in three failed budgets in a row, have spent $315 billion. That's $30,000 per household. There is no household in my electorate that feels it is $30,000 better off. That is because the $315 billion that has been spent by this government has largely been wasteful and unproductive. It has done nothing to improve the lot of Australian people. It has done nothing to improve the lot of households, and it has done nothing to improve the situation for the 2.5 million small businesses in our country. The Reserve Bank has said the inflation rate is domestically driven, so we want to hear no more nonsense from those on the other side that keep blaming wars overseas for inflation. The inflation is firmly in their hands and it is their overspending. History tells us that is always what happens when we have a Labor government. They always lose control of the economy, and this government is no different. Mortgage holders with this cost-of-living crisis—and I have 22,000 in my electorate—have paid $35,000 more in two years. That is a cost-of-living crisis because that is $35,000 they've paid to their banks that they are then unable to spend on a family holiday or on groceries. They are unable to spend that in their local business when going out for dinner. That is the result of what we have seen with this government's overspending, and Australians know that they're in a cost-of-living crisis. We can talk big numbers, but let's look at some specifics. In two years, for example, insurance has gone up 27 per cent, and we are now seeing more and more people not renewing their medical insurance. Chicken is up 10 per cent; jam, 11 per cent; cakes, 19 per cent. Takeaway food costs 15 per cent more. Spirits cost 14 per cent more. Vegetable oil is up 28 per cent. These are all of the small things that are contributing to this crisis. When you put all of this together, Australians know each week, when they go and get their groceries, it's costing them more. And when we've heard this week from those on the other side that there's going to be a soft landing from 1 July, I can tell you right now that those in my electorate don't believe it. And those on the other side know that those in their electorates also do not believe it, because they are paying the same increases here that my constituents and everybody across the country are paying. We've been asked what we would do. This is what we won't do in government: we won't, for example, put on an extra 36,000 public servants. It hasn't been explained exactly what these public servants are going to be doing. We won't be doing that. We will be getting inflation under control. We will be pursuing an energy policy that will deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy. This is a cost-of-living crisis that has been brought about by this Albanese Labor government. (Time expired) 15:53 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Obviously the last decade was some sort of fever dream that most of us had to sleep through. But let's start this MPI plainly. If those opposite really cared about the cost-of-living pressures people were under, they wouldn't have opposed the cost-of-living relief that rolled out across the country this week. If they really cared, they would care about wages. Under this Labor government real wages grew more in the past year at 0.5 per cent than they did during their entire 10 years in office—something we knew was deliberate. If they really cared, they would care about jobs. Instead, those opposite left us with a sluggish labour market. Under Labor, more than 880,000 new jobs have been created in two years. Productivity growth under those opposite was the worst in 40 years, and we have reversed that decline. Business investment declined to the lowest level since the early 2000s under them. Business investment under us has grown in every single quarter and is up 13 per cent in real terms. Then, of course, there's the budget under them. They planned a $78 billion deficit with no surpluses projected at any time between 2022 and 2060-61 yet they come here and pretend that they're somehow great economic managers. We turned that $78 billion deficit into a Labor surplus of $22 billion and then a second Labor surplus in the following year, and we didn't need a range of mugs to do it with. Let's not forget the cutting of family payments through indexation freezing and the millions of dollars of waste through the obscene use of contractors in the Public Service. We know that's what they're planning; they want to cut back public servants again and replace them with consultants and contractors. We know how that goes. Those opposite left bulk-billing in a shambles. In November 2021, six months before the last election, the financial viability of general practice was in serious trouble after the coalition's six-year freeze on Medicare rebates that started when the Leader of the Opposition was health minister. Bulk-billing was falling off a cliff, which is why we tripled the bulk-billing incentive from 1 November last year—the largest investment in bulk-billing in history. In the seven months since we tripled the investment we have seen a turnaround in bulk-billing, a national increase of 3.4 percentage points from 75.6 per cent of all GP visits bulk-billed in October to 79 per cent in May—or around two million additional estimated visits. Here in the ACT we saw a 5.5 per cent increase—the second-largest increase in the country. Under our government people now pay no more than $31.60 for medicines on the PBS. The Albanese government has delivered the largest price reduction in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Under this government we've been working both directly and indirectly to fix the cost-of-living issues Australian households are facing. On Monday this week some 13.6 million Australian taxpayers got a tax cut, millions of workers on the award wage got a pay rise thanks to the backing of this government and energy bill relief began getting rolled out to every household and one million small businesses. What's the alternative? Their idea of cost-of-living relief can be summed up with their approach to nuclear energy—a $600 billion bill to taxpayers for nuclear reactors that maybe come online in the 2040s. Nothing says, 'We care about the cost of living,' more than saddling taxpayers with more debt and locking them into structurally higher energy prices for decades to come. Nothing says, 'We care for the cost of living,' more than having to be dragged to supporting Labor's tax cuts, or opposing cheaper cleaner energy, or teaming up with the Greens political party to block cheaper housing, or actively avoiding pay increases for minimum-wage earners or doing everything they can to stop Australian taxpayers from earning more and keeping more of what they earn. This opposition love running around telling everyone how much easier it will be under them, but one only needs to look at their record in government or in opposition. So far, every announcement they make is a new bin fire of angry incompetence which puts the future of our economy at risk. Every new announcement they make is the worst combination of uncosted, unhinged and undercooked, with the primary purpose of each new announcement to distract from the announcement they made a few weeks ago. On 25 July, during the winter break, we will mark the 44th anniversary of the release of AC/DC's iconic Back in Black, one of the great comeback albums of all time. It's fair to say that some of the songs have aged, but they haven't aged anything like the range of mugs—which is the closest those opposite got to a manufacturing policy here in Australia, let alone a surplus. 15:58 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I am a proud Victorian. It is school holidays in Victoria, and here we are. I acknowledge my good friend the member for Nicholls and his son, David Birrell, who is here in the adviser box. I acknowledge the pain and the grief of his family over your dad, your grandad, Ryan Birrell, who passed away recently. He was here, very proud of you becoming a member of the Australian parliament. You have done your family proud, and you have done him proud. I'm looking down the camera online to my children back at home, Leo and Eva; I hope you're behaving well! Mr Giles 243609 You want to talk to mine? Mr WOLAHAN 235654 I'll talk to your children, too! I want to speak to Victorian families right now, because they are doing it tough. Those of us who sit in this place have a privileged position; we are paid very well for what we do. But let's not forget that the average salary in Australia is half of what we get—$95,000. The median salary is $65,000—even less. When you think about what 'median' means, it means half of Australians earn less and half earn more. They are facing serious decisions and consequences of this inflation crisis. It's easy to talk about it in an academic way, but it has consequences for families who are feeling that stress and pain, who are losing sleep and who are feeling shame—and they shouldn't because it's not their fault. Particularly over school holidays, I have been overwhelmed by the phone calls and the conversations with Victorian families who are telling me, in heartbreaking circumstances, what they have to put back on the shelf and what they have to tell their children over these school holidays. Like many, I have food banks in my electorate, and one told me they have never seen numbers like they have now—never. In one food bank in Templestowe, they are servicing 250 people in four hours; that's about 75 families. In another, there are queues out the car park. When you stand there and see the good work that the volunteers do at those food banks, more often than not they are helping families that have had a marriage breakdown, unemployment or illness. It is tough enough with two income earners in a family, but when one of those three things happens—and statistically they do—it sends people over the edge. Another food bank told me about a school that they support where they provide fruit in a bowl—fresh fruit. What they have heard from the teachers and the staff at that school is that as soon as they put it out it disappears. What should we take from that? This isn't just about luxury items. We are seeing Australians right now hurting so much that young Australians at school are not getting fresh food. Families are putting meat, eggs and chicken back on the shelf because they cannot afford it. We are seeing parents who will go back to school a week after next in Victoria and say, 'I am really sorry that you cannot go on that camp.' And we see up here fewer schoolchildren coming to visit this place. One of the reasons we are seeing fewer is that families cannot afford it. They cannot afford it. That shouldn't be the Australia that we live in in 2024. I see parents say, 'I can't afford the musical instrument or the musical lessons that you had.' You may not know it, but right now there's a soccer tournament on in Europe, and that is one of the most popular sports in my electorate. Many are losing sleep, staying up to watch the quarterfinals of the European cup. But I have heard again and again that families have had to pull their children out of soccer because it's not subsidised like AFL. It's more expensive, and they can't afford it. For the children in my electorate, that is heartbreaking. That's their dream. They want to be the next Messi or the next Ronaldo. It's a sport that they love, and they can't afford to play it. For the Victorian families in my electorate and for those that are running small businesses—and so many do: you are facing an increase in taxes that other states don't have. And that is why we have seen a flight of small businesses out of Victoria. We lost an aggregate of 7,600 last year, while Queensland gained 11,000. You're doing it tough in Victoria. During these school holidays, I have heard families say, 'I feel ashamed for not being able to provide for them.' You shouldn't feel shame. It is for us in this place to do our best to make sure that you have a better life for you and your children. 16:03 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I rise to speak to this matter of public importance. I want to just say to the member for Menzies: as a child growing up in a family where I was one of 11 kids, I was seeing the struggles of both of my parents, who both worked but were making sure, as parents with a responsibility, that their children, all 11 of them, were kept safe and fed and went to school every day. That was really important for my parents because they had limited education. It was a time, when they grew up in the Northern Territory, when they were denied even an education and to go to school. For them, it was about making sure that their 11 children got an education. For us, that was the key to getting ourselves out of—I suppose for many of us it's about picking yourselves up from the bootstraps. I know there are many families in my electorate of Lingiari that are doing it tough, and none of us on this side have ever denied that the cost of living is impacting on our constituencies right across Australia. I certainly see it more acutely in regional and remote Northern Territory communities, where people really do it tough. But I'm proud to stand here as part of a government which is offering tax cuts—which had the discussion and the debate about changing stage 3 tax cuts and making sure that all Australians could have access to a tax cut. There are also the energy rebates and wiping of student debt. These are important ways that Labor's budget is delivering cost-of-living relief for every Australian, particularly in my electorate of Lingiari. As I said, the cost of living remains a major issue of concern for everyone—particularly everyone in Lingiari. On 1 July this year, the Albanese Labor government delivered a tax cut for every taxpayer. In my electorate of Lingiari, about 43,000 taxpayers will get a tax cut under Labor's tax cuts. Our economic plan is to bring inflation under control, boost wages and put in place policies for fairer prices for Australian consumers. That's particularly so for people like my constituents living in regional and remote Lingiari; they are no different but they certainly get the impact. Labor wants people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and that could not be said more than in terms of my constituents. After I leave this place today, I will get around Lingiari and let people know about our tax cuts, and also about the $300 electricity rebate. That's certainly an important issue for people in Lingiari. I was listening to the member for Bean, who talked about Medicare. One of the things we're certainly proud of in the Northern Territory is that, out of the 29 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics, there have been 10,700 visits to Mparntwe, the Alice Springs Urgent Care Clinic. That isn't just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients; everybody across Alice Springs is getting access to that clinic. The Palmerston Urgent Care Clinic is also providing needed Medicare services through that clinic. I know that Labor's cost-of-living measures are making a real difference to people in my electorate of Lingiari, and these critical measures are part of Labor's long-term economic plan to help Australians—and people in Lingiari—to bring down inflation right now. And we're planning a future made in Australia. 16:08 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook Right now, the people in Cook are hurting. Just this week, I was speaking to St Vincent de Paul in Gymea about constituents facing homelessness. They face homelessness in Cook because of the cost-of-living crisis. But this week we've had to listen to the Labor government boast about their cost-of-living measures for a cost-of-living crisis they've had a large hand in creating. How have they done this? It's $315 billion of spending—$30,000 per household. I know that every household in Cook—and, I would say, every household in Australia—would rather have had that $30,000 in their bank accounts than go through wasteful Labor government spending. It was no surprise that the member for Swan didn't want to claim credit for interest rates. Yes, interest rates have gone up 13 times in a row and, yes, the Reserve Bank is independent. But let me tell you what independent economist Chris Richardson said just last week about the government's response: Governments are throwing a lot of money at the symptoms of the cost-of-living crisis, but that worsens the cause of it. He went on to say: Governments have abandoned the field in the inflation fight. He said: We are fighting the inflation fight one-handed. Yes, the Reserve Bank may be independent, but they are fighting with one hand tied behind their back, because this government simply will not rein in spending. They know this. While they want to boast about energy relief and while they want to boast about tax cuts, they know that what's happening is that this is driving inflation. Inflation will be higher for longer, and, unfortunately, it risks rates going up. When I'm chatting to St Vincent de Paul in my electorate, when we're talking about constituents facing homelessness, this is dire, and the Australian public knows it's dire. Australia is different—we are different. I can see some of the members over there taking notes. If they're taking notes on what I'm talking about then I'd ask them to address this question: why does Australia have higher inflation than the US, the UK, New Zealand and the euro area? If they're going to comment on anything in this speech, please comment on this point: why is Australia's inflation increasing while it is decreasing in every other one of those countries? I would like to know the answer to that, I think the Reserve Bank would like to know the answer to that and I know that the Australian people would like to know the answer to that. What kind of fantasy land is the Labor government living in when they're boasting and high-fiving about $300 energy subsidies? The gall of that! Two years ago they were promising that energy bills would go down by $275. They have risen by $1,000. I have sat here silently at the back of the chamber this week, listening to high-fives about $300 off energy prices. The constituents in my electorate are now paying $700 more after you promised them $275 off. I'm listening to high-fives about tax cuts from every single person who asked a question. I heard about 86,000 people in this electorate and 27,000 people in that electorate. Well, the truth is that average Australians are now paying 20 per cent more in personal income tax because of bracket creep and because of the homegrown inflation this government has driven. They have the gall to be high-fiving and slapping each other on the back about a $300 subsidy. In a Liberal government, we don't believe the answer to the increased cost of living is subsidies. It's not more government and it's not splashing cash. What is it? It's addressing the problem: it's lowering energy prices, lowering the cost of living and lowering house prices. It's not subsidies and it's not bigger government. Ms Mascarenhas 298800 Is that through nuclear? Mr KENNEDY 267506 Nuclear—let's talk about that! I noticed, Member for Swan, that you did not talk about green hydrogen. Yes, you talked about hydro, and hydro is great. But, unfortunately, Australia is not geographically set up to have hydro everywhere in every part of the country. What are we going to do for that baseload power? Yes, we need zero emissions energy. We need lots of zero emissions energy; we need wind and we need solar. But why aren't you rolling out nuclear? I would love to understand why you're ruling it out. Why are you ruling out nuclear? I don't understand that. I do not understand that, and the Australian public— Mr Giles 243609 We will! Mr KENNEDY 267506 You might ridicule the coalition for that. You might ridicule the 50 per cent of Australians who think we should look at that— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member might want to direct his comments to me. Mr KENNEDY 267506 But we're not into ridiculing Australians. We're here to listen to them and have a fact based debate. 16:13 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga The Leader of the Opposition began this debate this afternoon by trying to pretend that he in fact has a plan for our country's future. He gave it a red-hot crack. I have to hand that to him; he certainly did try to present a plan for our future. The trouble is, like all the plans that the Leader of the Opposition tries to serve up, it was wafer thin and it just doesn't add up. There were no details, and we all know that famous slogan—made famous, I think, in fact by the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite: 'If you don't know, vote no'. When we're served up plans with no details and we're told that this is what the Australian people should rely on for their future—when times are tough and when we do need serious governments which are going to do serious work—then, if you don't know, vote no. What the Leader of the Opposition is putting in front of us is a giant con. He's pretending that he is trying to address the climate crisis which is in front of us. In fact, what we're getting from the Leader of the Opposition is the type of climate denial that we got under the lot opposite in their nearly a decade in power. It's the kind of climate denial that has left our country in the position where our government is now stepping in to do the work we need to do to build the country of the future and to make the transition to renewables. While we're doing that work and doing it in the way that sensible governments do it, the opposition gives us a two-page plan for nuclear. So what do we know about the plan? What do we know about what Peter Dutton has proposed? We do know that it will cost more. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You will need to use the member's correct title, Member for Jagajaga. Ms THWAITES 282212 Certainly. What do we know about the plan that the Leader of the Opposition has presented to us? We do know that it will cost more. All the experts tell us that, for Australia, nuclear is the most expensive option. Where will that extra cost end up? It will end up in the power bills of Australian households. The member for Cook talked about the need to rein in spending in the speech he just gave. That is a conversation he probably does need to have with his leader, because, if we were talking about reining in spending, the absolute worst thing that we could do would be to sign a blank cheque from the government for the most expensive form of power there could be for our country—nuclear energy—and to have that end up in Australians' power bills. Of course, on this side of the House, we are taking a very different approach. We know that times are difficult for so many Australians at the moment, so that is why we have been focused on providing very real cost-of-living relief in the areas where we know that Australians are feeling it, with tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer and power bill rebates—$300 for every household and $325 for one million small businesses. I know when I've been talking about this measure in my community people have really welcomed it. They have also asked me, 'How do we get it?' I want to let you all know you don't have to do anything to get it. It will be applied directly to your power bill. We are putting a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian. We've put in place a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers, more funding to build homes in every part of the country and an additional two weeks of paid parental leave. Of course, this builds on reforms we've already delivered: cheaper child care; free-fee TAFE; our biggest ever investment in expanding bulk-billing; an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance; and the wiping of almost $3 billion in student debt. This is real, tangible cost-of-living relief for every person in Jagajaga and for every person in Australia, who we know is doing it tough. Australians deserve better than what they were served up from the Leader of the Opposition today. They deserve better than a wafer-thin proposal masquerading as a plan. They deserve better than a leader of the opposition who is so deep in climate denial that he is ready to tell Australians that the only option, the only way forward, is the most expensive and the most unviable—that the only way that this country can meet its energy needs of the future is to go nuclear and for Australians to pay more for their power. Australian people deserve a government that understands that times are tough and that is delivering real, tangible cost-of-living relief. That is what this government is doing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for the debate has now concluded. BILLS 5070 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 5070

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Consideration of Senate Message 5070 16:19 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That the amendments be agreed to. These amendments have been the subject of discussion between the Greens party, the opposition and other interested stakeholders. For the benefits of the crossbench, these are minor technical amendments which better clarify the intention of government in relation to the payment of financial advice fees from superannuation funds and in relation to improvements in offset arrangements for film production being performed here within Australia. Question agreed to. Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024, Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024, Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 5071

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024

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

Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024

Returned from Senate 5071 Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024 5071

Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 5071 16:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon) 248181 The Speaker has received the following message from the Senate: The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives of the following resolution agreed to by the Senate this day: That the Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for inquiry and report by 11 February 2025. COMMITTEES 5071 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 5071 Membership 5071 16:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon) 248181 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Shoebridge has been appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, contingent on the Senate concurring with the resolution relating to the variation of appointment of the committee. BILLS 5071 BILLS Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 5071

Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Consideration in Detail 5071 16:21 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon) 248181 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to. The member is in continuation. 16:21 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Further to my earlier comments in relation to the amendments that I have moved, I refer to the amendment in relation to introducing unacceptable impacts into this legislation. We often have situations where communities are dragged along for years trying to fight projects, and it should really be clear from the outset that they are simply not acceptable projects because of their unacceptable impact. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 refers to both 'significant impacts' and 'unacceptable impacts' yet fails to adequately define either within the act. 'Significant impacts' does have a 40-page guidance documents provided by the department, but 'unacceptable impacts' on matters of national environmental significance is a term that is used in the context of what is clearly unacceptable. Yet many proponents will still apply for a project and drag that community on for years on end. Clearly, what might appear as unacceptable is anything but. The term has been the subject of prolonged cases illustrating that uncertainty around the term and the impacting proponents, as well as adversaries of proposed developments. Most concerning, though, is the risk that, as a result of 'unacceptable impacts' not being clearly defined, actions that arguably will cause unacceptable impacts nevertheless proceed, risking a matter of national significance. The amendment that I have proposed deals with this concern. It is in the form of a table clearly outlining unacceptable impacts for each matter of environmental significance. It would not only protect the environment but also save proponents time and money, with clear certainty about what unacceptable impacts actually are, and the practical implications of this amendment are significant. Arguably, with clear definitions, unacceptable projects such as the Woolworths one around the New South Wales Central Coast distribution centre, where there was an issue of expanding into critical habitat of endangered flora and fauna, would not have been able to proceed and drag that community along for so long. Similarly, the development in Toondah Harbour has a history spanning nearly a decade of disputes under the EPBC Act. Approval was initially rejected for 'unacceptable impacts' only to then be accepted by then environment minister Josh Frydenberg. Again, certainty for communities is what is needed. The other amendment that is proposed is in relation to making sure that the EPA is a tough cop on the beat by providing the power to amend conditions. Too often, despite robust conditions being imposed on a proponent, there is a failure to comply with conditions and then, rather than the proponent genuinely suffering the real consequence of that failure to comply, we at times see conditions watered down, and that is not in the best environmental interest. I commend these amendments to the minister. I have had discussions and I understand she is not supporting them, but I do look forward to further discussions to make sure that we strengthen this. There are many people in the community and around Australia who are very concerned that, unless tranche 3 genuinely delivers stronger protections for the environment, this whole enterprise will have failed to address the concerns raised in the Samuel report. Question negatived. 16:25 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark by leave—I move amendments (1) to (20), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 2, page 13 (before line 7), before item 1, insert: 1A After Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 Insert: Subdivision FC — Protection of the environment from significant emissions 24F Purpose of this Subdivision The purpose of this Subdivision is: (a) to contribute to meeting Australia's obligations under the Climate Change Conventions; and (b) to provide for the protection of the environment from climate change, including from the impacts of climate change on matters of national environmental significance. 24G Requirement for approval of activities with significant emissions (1) A person who is a constitutional corporation must not take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on emissions. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) section 43A or 43B lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action: (i) is not an action that has, will have or is likely to have a prohibited impact on emissions; and (ii) is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: If the Minister decides under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action, the Minister may revoke and substitute the decision if satisfied that it is warranted by the availability of substantial new information about the impacts of the action, or by a substantial change in circumstances that relates to the impacts of the action: see section 78. This may include, for example, where the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted in relation to the action is higher than was predicted at the time the proposal to take the action was referred. 24H What is a significant impact on emissions ? For the purposes of this Act, an action has a significant impact on emissions if the total amount of emissions of greenhouse gases in relation to the action in any 12 month period has a carbon dioxide equivalence of 80 kilotonnes or more. 24J Offence relating to significant emissions (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person is a constitutional corporation; and (b) the person takes an action; and (c) the action: (i) has or will have a significant impact on emissions; or (ii) is likely to have a significant impact on emissions. Note 1: An executive officer of a corporation convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495. Note 2: If a corporation takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C. Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) section 43A or 43B lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action: (i) is not an action that has, will have or is likely to have a prohibited impact on emissions; and (ii) is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note 1: If the Minister decides under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action, the Minister may revoke and substitute the decision if satisfied that it is warranted by the availability of substantial new information about the impacts of the action, or by a substantial change in circumstances that relates to the impacts of the action: see section 78. This may include, for example, where the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted in relation to the action is higher than was predicted at the time the proposal to take the action was referred. Note 2: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. 1B After paragraph 25AA(2)(i) Insert: ; (j) subsection 24J(1); 1C After paragraph 25AA(3)(gb) Insert: (gc) subsection 24G(1); (2) Schedule 2, page 13 (after line 22), after item 8, insert: 8A Subsection 29(1) Omit "24D or 24E", substitute "24D, 24E, 24G or 24J". 8B Subsection 33(1) After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24G or 24J". 8C Section 34 (after table item 13J) Insert: 8D Section 37 After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24G or 24J,". 8E Section 37A After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24G or 24J". 8F Section 37M After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24G or 24J,". 8G After paragraph 42(b) Insert: (ba) actions that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on emissions; or 8H Section 43 After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24G or 24J,". 8J Subsections 46(1), (2) and (2A) Omit "24D or 24E", substitute "24D, 24E, 24G or 24J". (3) Schedule 2, page 13 (after line 24), after item 9, insert: 9A At the end of Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 9 Add: 141 Requirements for decisions about significant emissions In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 24G or 24J the taking of an action, and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must consider whether, if the approval were granted, the action would be consistent with: (a) the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (within the meaning of the Climate Change Act 2022); and (b) the achievement of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in Australia's nationally determined contribution; and (c) Australia's international legal obligations relating to climate change. 141A No approval for actions with prohibited impact on emissions The Minister must not approve an action that has, will have or is likely to have a prohibited impact on emissions. 9B At the end of Subdivision C of Division 1 of Part 10 Add: 146N Approvals relating to significant emissions If the approval relates to section 24G or 24J, the Minister must consider whether, if the approval were granted, the action or actions in the class of actions would be consistent with: (a) the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (within the meaning of the Climate Change Act 2022); and (b) the achievement of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in Australia's nationally determined contribution; and (c) Australia's international legal obligations relating to climate change. 146P No approvals relating to actions with prohibited impact on emissions The Minister must not approve the taking of an action or a class of actions in accordance with an endorsed policy, plan or program if the action, or an action in the class of actions, has, will have or is likely to have a prohibited impact on emissions. 9C After subsection 163(1) Insert: (1A) If the Minister is satisfied that the action has, will have or is likely to have a prohibited impact on emissions, the advice must state that: (a) the person who takes the action may commit an offence or be liable to a civil penalty under this Act; and (b) the agency or employee should not give the authorisation. 9D After paragraph 176(4)(d) Insert: (da) priorities and strategies to ensure that any action taken in accordance with the plan is consistent with: (i) the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (within the meaning of the Climate Change Act 2022); and (ii) the achievement of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in Australia's nationally determined contribution; and (iii) Australia's international legal obligations relating to climate change; (db) mechanisms for monitoring the impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases on biodiversity, heritage values and other values; (4) Schedule 2, page 20 (after line 11), after item 82, insert: 82A After subsection 305(3A) Insert: (3B) In deciding whether to enter into a proposed conservation agreement, the Minister must consider whether the agreement is consistent with: (a) the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (within the meaning of the Climate Change Act 2022); and (b) the achievement of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in Australia's nationally determined contribution; and (c) Australia's international legal obligations relating to climate change. 82B Subsection 306A(1) After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24G or 24J". (5) Schedule 2, item 146, page 27 (line 1), omit paragraph 486E(2)(b), substitute: (b) a Deputy CEO (within the meaning of the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Act 2024); (ba) a member of the staff of EPA; (6) Schedule 2, item 151, page 27 (lines 13 to 16), omit subparagraphs 491(1)(b)(vi) and (vii), substitute: (vi) a Deputy CEO (within the meaning of the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Act 2024); or (vii) a member of the staff of EPA; (7) Schedule 2, page 27 (after line 16), after item 151, insert: 151A After subparagraph 495(2)(a)(via) Insert: (via) section 24J (offence relating to significant emissions); or 151B After subparagraph 496C(1)(a)(viia) Insert: (viib) section 24J (offence relating to significant emissions); or (8) Schedule 2, item 165, page 29 (line 20), after "CEO", insert "or a Deputy CEO (within the meaning of the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Act 2024)". (9) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (line 6), after "CEO", insert ", Deputy CEO". (10) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (line 9), after "CEO", insert "or a Deputy CEO (within the meaning of the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Act 2024)". (11) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (lines 11 and 12), omit the note, substitute: Note: A power or function delegated to the CEO, Deputy CEO or a member of staff cannot be subdelegated by the CEO, Deputy CEO or staff member. (12) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (line 15), after "CEO", insert "or a Deputy CEO (within the meaning of the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Act 2024)". (13) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (lines 17 and 18), omit the note, substitute: Note: A power or function delegated to the CEO, Deputy CEO or a member of staff cannot be subdelegated by the CEO, Deputy CEO or staff member. (14) Schedule 2, page 31 (after line 29), after item 180, insert: 180A At the end of Division 1 of Part 23 Add: Subdivision G — Emissions 527F Emissions (1) For the purposes of this Act, an emission of greenhouse gas, in relation to an action, means the release of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a direct or indirect result of the action, including as a result of: (a) any activities (such as land clearing) preparatory to the action; and (b) any activities ancillary to the action, irrespective of: (i) who owns or controls any facility from which the greenhouse gas is released; and (ii) whether the greenhouse gas is released within or outside of Australia. Note: This definition covers upstream emissions, downstream emissions, end-use consumption emissions as well as exported emissions occurring outside of Australia. For example: (a) the release of greenhouse gas resulting from the action of extracting or producing materials at a facility; (b) the release of greenhouse gas from the transportation of fuels purchased by the facility; (c) the release of greenhouse gas from the use of products and services sold by the facility. (2) The Minister may determine, by legislative instrument, methods, or criteria for methods, by which the amounts of emissions of greenhouse gases are to be measured for the purposes of this Act and may specify: (a) different methods or criteria for emissions from different sources; and (b) different methods or criteria depending on the circumstances in which the emissions occurred; and (c) conditions relating to the use of methods determined by the Minister or of methods which meet criteria determined by the Minister; and (d) rating systems for those methods (including different rating systems for different circumstances); and (e) the particular rating given to each of those methods. 527G Prohibited impact on emissions For the purposes of this Act, an action has a prohibited impact on emissions if the total amount of emissions of greenhouse gases in relation to the action in any 12 month period has a carbon dioxide equivalence of 100 kilotonnes or more. (15) Schedule 2, item 181, page 32 (before line 3), before the definition of CEO, insert: Australia's nationally determined contribution means: (a) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or (b) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time. carbon dioxide equivalence of an amount of greenhouse gas has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. (16) Schedule 2, item 181, page 32 (after line 5), after the definition of CEO, insert: Climate Change Conventions has the same meaning as in the Product Emissions Standards Act 2017. emission of greenhouse gas, in relation to an action, has the meaning given by subsection 527F(1). (17) Schedule 2, item 181, page 32 (after line 8), after the definition of EPA, insert: greenhouse gas has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Paris Agreement means the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time. Note: The Agreement is in Australian Treaty Series 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). prohibited impact on emissions has the meaning given by section 527G. significant impact on emissions has the meaning given by section 24H. (18) Schedule 2, item 181, page 32 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of staff of EPA, substitute: staff of EPA has the same meaning as in the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Act 2024. (19) Schedule 2, page 32 (after line 10), after item 181, insert: 181A Application provision — climate trigger The amendments made by items 1A to 1C, 8A to 8J, 9A to 9D, 82A, 82B, 151A, 151B and 180A of this Schedule apply in relation to actions that begin on or after the day this item commences. (20) Schedule 9, item 203, page 79 (lines 21 to 23), omit paragraph 180(3)(f), substitute: (f) a Deputy CEO (within the meaning of the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Act 2024); (g) a member of the staff of EPA (within the meaning of that Act). The Prime Minister noted in 2005 when introducing his own climate change trigger bill in parliament that our environmental laws currently ignore the glaring gap of climate change. Isn't it a sad indictment then that the same thing remains true 20 years later? I've taken inspiration from the Prime Minister's proposal in the drafting of these amendments to the bill to introduce a climate trigger to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. My amendments would require projects that would directly or indirectly emit more than 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year to be assessed for approval under the EPBC Act. This includes scope 3 emissions so that exported emissions are factored into decision-making on projects. These amendments also require the newly established EPA to ensure decisions on projects are consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions target as set out in the Climate Change Act as well as our Paris targets and other international legal obligations relating to climate change. What's more, these amendments will also prohibit the approval of any action that would emit 100,000 tonnes of CO2 or more. This is important because we are running out of time to address the climate crisis and we need urgent action to turn things around. My amendments also introduce new offences relating to undertaking unapproved actions that will have a significant impact on emissions and include consequential amendments to the EPBC Act necessary for the implementation of the climate trigger and my amendments to the EPA bill. It is obvious to anyone who has paid even the slightest attention that our environment laws should aim to protect our precious natural world from climate change because it is clearly one of the most significant threats. Australians know this, the department knows this and certainly the Prime Minister knows this. This begs the question: Why are we still waiting for a climate trigger? Why have we had to sit through review after review, with committee report after committee report, and endless briefings from experts all telling us the same thing? What it comes down to is the inaction and inertia of successive governments on both sides of politics who buried their heads in the sand and kicked the can down the road at every opportunity. When this government was elected promising to end the climate wars by taking credible action on climate change, many were heartened. Some hope was kindled that it might be this government that finally recognises that climate change must be included when making decisions about matters of national environmental significance. But instead, when it comes to including it in their reforms, they have ducked, diverted and delayed, and they have treated the parliament and the community as mugs in the process, telling us not to worry because this whole climate change thing has been solved by the safeguard mechanism and there is no need to think about it anymore. But people in my community and across the country are worried, and rightly so. Since 2005, excluding the dodgy inclusion of land use changes, Australia has only reduced our actual emissions by about 1½ per cent, and we have seen recent reports that, even on the government's own numbers, we are currently in danger of falling short of our 2030 target. However, now is not the time to abandon our ambition and our targets, as some in this place would suggest, but, instead, to redouble our efforts. To close, I will again quote the Prime Minister from his speech 20 years ago. He said, 'It is time to act; it is time for procrastination to end.' I urge the government and all members to do so now and support these amendments. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 5077 16:29 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 5077 ADJOURNMENT Cybersafety 5077 16:29 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Last week, Victorians broke for the school holidays, and, with that, kids around our state, often including mine, will be glued to their phones for the next few weeks. While the internet and social media hold many benefits for people of all ages, the online environment inherently presents a range of risks, and Australians intuitively understand what these risks are. One of the most urgent risks to the health of our young people online is the spread of eating disorder or heavy dieting content which can damage mental health, self-esteem and wellbeing. Eating disorders among youth aged 10 to 19 have risen by 85 per cent since 2012, roughly coinciding with the rise of social media. We can all agree that a 15-year-old comparing themselves to an influencer who partakes in extreme dieting or an excessive bodybuilding lifestyle is not normal or the kind of content that encourages healthy emotional development. In many cases, social media algorithms will recommend this kind of content to get more likes, clicks and engagement. Another risk relates to addictive design features, which are programmed by teams of experts in Silicon Valley to keep our kids scrolling and sharing. Red-dot notifications at the top right-hand corner of apps are designed to create a sense of alert and urgency. This feature often creates a strange urge for us to open the app just to clear the backlog of notifications. The use of slot-machine-type features on Instagram and TikTok are designed to create a dopamine spike and, like real-world pokies, keep you playing. Many new regulatory approaches to combat addiction are being tested around the world. The EU, a world leader in this space, has recently opened proceedings against TikTok over a new feature which rewards kids with a virtual currency for the more videos they watch, posts they like and friends they bring to the platform. Named the task and reward program, users can exchange this currency for rewards like Amazon vouchers, PayPal gift cards or tips for TikTok influencers. Originally released for France and Spain, the EU's new regulation allows it to intervene against the further rollout of this feature, based on criteria like the protection of minors, advertising transparency and the risk of social media addiction. The investigation and the proceedings are ongoing. No such law exists in Australia. Here, digital platforms are largely free to test and roll out features of this kind, and the government currently lacks any power to meaningfully challenge this. Much of the debate on social media regulation in recent months has centred on the question of whether access should be restricted by age. Do we really think that clicking 'I'm over 18' or implementing an age verification or assurance system are long-term structural solutions to counter the social harms of social media? As far as I know, the technology to make this work properly doesn't yet exist, and, arguably, our kids are too smart not to find ways around it. If they can find ways to get into a pub, they can find ways to get onto social media. I'll await the results of the government's age assurance trial with interest. However, I would argue that a newer, systemic approach to regulating digital platforms in Australia is needed—one that focuses on and puts the onus of responsibility onto the platforms themselves, like Meta, TikTok, Snapchat and various others, to become healthier spaces for our young people to inhabit. What is colloquially known as the algorithm is actually an array of various systems and elements which work together to keep us scrolling. To fully protect Australian adults and children from online harm, we must look under the hood and properly regulate these systems, much like the EU and the UK have done. What exactly does this look like? First, it's applying an overarching legal duty of care, just like in the hospitality, medical and professional services industries. There's no reason in my mind that this shouldn't apply to social media companies too. Second, it's requiring platforms to assess all of their systems and elements which could conceivably cause risk to children and adults, with specified risks to report against and mitigate, like mental health, addictive design features and gendered violence. These measures should be supported by healthy design features, such as the ability to turn off content recommendations and reset your algorithm whenever the user chooses. Online safety can't be safe unless it is systemic. Housing 5078 16:35 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Over the past few days, we've seen the Liberals come to the dispatch box here and ask questions of the government on housing. Their questions always imply two things. Firstly, the Liberals imply that the housing crisis we are in today only started two years ago. Secondly, they continue to shamefully link current migration numbers with a housing crisis that we know has been decades in the making. Those two implications are not only offensive but are wildly incorrect. With the record that the Liberals and Nationals have in their decade in government, it takes some gall to come in here and blame the current government for the housing crisis those opposite helped make worse. In two years, you cannot solve a housing crisis that has been decades in the making. In two years, you cannot fix the under-investment in social housing that occurred under the Liberals. And it takes a lot longer than two years to unpick the ill-thought-out and half-baked policies which have contributed to the housing crisis we face today. During their time in office, the number of new social homes built was the lowest in over 50 years. Under their watch, homelessness rates soared—a fact starkly illustrated by the latest census data. The Liberals made significant cuts to funding for social and affordable housing, especially the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The NRAS was supposed to offer affordable rentals for low- to moderate-income earners, but its cancellation has contributed to the housing crisis we're in today. In 2014, they abolished the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, which was essential for monitoring housing supply and affordability issues and provided advice to government on how to meet challenges. Without it, policy decisions were made blindly, devoid of expert advice. No policy demonstrated that lack of expert advice better than their housing policies during the pandemic, or one in particular—their HomeBuilder program. Nearly every expert was saying that, to sustain the building industry, government support should go to supply. Instead of providing more supply, and instead of providing more homes for renters, all HomeBuilder did was drive up the price of housing. Instead of building more homes, HomeBuilder helped people already with homes to renovate their homes. It's clear that the former government failed on housing. They have the gall to come in here and accuse this government, saying we haven't had time to clean up their mess in two years. Well, of course, we haven't finished that. In two short years, I can tell you, Deputy Speaker Claydon, we're actually doing something about supply. Unbelievably, the Liberals have voted against all efforts to fix the housing crisis we're in today—every single one. The Liberals weren't interested in finding solutions then, and they're not interested in finding them now. Unlike them, our government understands that too many Australians are facing serious housing challenges. We have an ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade through our Homes for Australia Plan. The most recent budget includes $6.2 billion to boost housing supply, bringing the total of the Homes for Australia package to a whopping $32 billion. Our $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness will double homelessness funding. We're committing $1 billion for homes for women and children fleeing violence, and we're expanding fee-free TAFE places to address construction skill shortages. We're taking immediate action, including the Social Housing Accelerator and initiatives to support renters and homebuyers, such as the Home Guarantee Scheme, the Help to Buy Scheme and our incentives to build 160,000 rental-only properties, which is currently being blocked in the Senate by the Liberals and the Greens. We were elected to help with the housing crisis, and at every opportunity the Albanese government has built on our broad and ambitious housing agenda, because we recognise the seriousness of our nation's challenges. Our government understands we cannot afford to aim low on housing. That's why our housing reforms are the most significant in a generation. Those opposite want to stand here and claim that our government isn't taking action on housing, and that's absolute rubbish. They had an opportunity to address the housing crisis, and they sat on their hands in their decade in government. Instead of tackling these issues head on, they choose to play politics, they choose to blame migrants, and then they team up with the Greens political party to block or vote down more housing supply. We are committed to ensuring every Australian has a safe and affordable place to call home, and, despite the efforts of the Liberals and their mates in the Greens to derail these plans, we were elected to get on with the job and will continue to do so. Herbert Electorate: Crime 5079 16:39 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert The No. 1 issue that we face in Townsville is crime—youth crime. Last night, tonight, tomorrow night—someone's home will be broken into. Cars will be stolen. Youth criminals will be terrorising the streets of Townsville, and that's because of the weak state Labor government. It has failed to act, failed to change the laws, failed to listen to the community and failed to keep us safe. We know that only the state Labor members and the state government can change state laws, and we haven't seen any action from them. People feel like prisoners in their own home, terrified to go out at night. They are scared to drive where a red light may be because they could be carjacked. They could have a knife put in their face. Townsville is known as the crime capital of Australia, and it's absolutely disgraceful that the Labor premier has failed to act. Even worse, three state Labor MPs want to tell the community that crime has been solved, crime is not an issue and there is nothing more they can do, which is absolutely false. There isn't a day that goes by where a victim of youth crime doesn't contact my office. Some of them have messaged me and said, 'Can you please voice what has happened to us in the federal parliament?' There are victims like Debbie, who said: I have had a teenager jump on the back of my car while leaving a local shopping centre, in broad daylight. Three men tried to break into my unit late one night damaging my door. Roslyn said: Last week I was run over by an e-scooter on the foot path. They didn't even stop. I was injured quite badly and taken to hospital. After my daughter dropped me home, she had an attempted carjacking. We need to feel safe, not scared. Suzy said: I have been broken into twice … with my vehicle stolen and written off each time along with other property damage. My children now sleep in with me and I avoid driving at night wherever I can. My kids no longer walk the dogs due to stolen cars flying around constantly. This from another: I have been a victim of youth crime, I was purposely rammed by a stolen car driven by youths, I was waiting for the lights to change at a local shopping centre when they rammed my car. My car was badly damaged and written off by my insurance company. I still have flash back moments. This incident has affected me both personally and financially and the girls that did this crime remain unpunished. This is not good enough. We need a state government and state members that stand up for the people of Townsville, that call out this bad behaviour and that punish crimes, instead of what has been occurring under this weak Labor state government—a revolving door of criminal activity. Even at Cleveland Youth Detention Centre, assaults go unpunished. Staff feel that they're getting blamed for the criminal activity that happens within the centre. This isn't good enough. Why should people feel scared? Why should people feel like a prisoner in their own home? Why should people get told, 'Make sure you hide your keys'? Why should I have to hide my keys in my home? Why should I feel that there may be someone who could enter, steal my car, and that's why I have to hide my keys? That's not good enough. My home, like many in Townsville, has been broken into. I had the police come around and do a fantastic job. Others have had their homes broken into where these youth criminals have been arrested and have been either taken to court and let go—a bit of a catch-and-release program—or sentenced and detained only to commit further crimes in detention, not charged, given time served and allowed back out onto the street to commit more crimes. We need a tough approach when it comes to these youth criminals. We need to punish bad behaviour. We need to ensure that programs that are out there are doing the right thing. If they're not, and a review takes place, then cut their funding. Funding needs to go where programs are working, and if the detention centre is at capacity, build more beds. If the detention centre needs a review, get the review done, because staff assaults are unacceptable. These youth criminals should not be running riot and being out of control on the streets of Townsville. We need a state government that stands up for the people of Townsville, and the three state Labor members that are there right now should resign. Albanese Government 5080 16:44 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Hasluck understands that a good government, as both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have stated, deals with the challenges facing it in the present while also planning for the future. With the Albanese government's cost-of-living tax cuts, every one of the 84,000 taxpayers in Hasluck has received a tax cut. A teacher in Guildford on $96,000 will have a tax cut of around $2,079. A nurse midwife at Midland hospital on $88,000 will receive a tax cut of about $1,880. A young electrician in Brabham, just starting out on $55,000, will see a tax cut of over $1,000—$1,054, to be precise. Australian taxpayers can go to the tax cut calculator and see what they will have back in their pocket, and the benefits of the Albanese government's tax cuts will be felt not just by the taxpayers but by their families and children as well. It's the right thing to do. Having a tax cut not just for the few but for everyone—this is only something that could have happened under an Albanese Labor government. We know this because the coalition government voted it down. Hasluck is better off, and Hasluck is healthier. Under the Albanese Labor government, we've now opened urgent care clinics across the country. In Midland, at North Street Medical Centre, we now have a bulk-billing urgent care clinic operating seven days a week, which takes the pressure off our nearby hospital emergency department. There have been over 400,000 presentations across the country to urgent care clinics. We've also introduced 60-day scripts. There have been over 47,000 scripts issued now on a 60-day script basis. This is money saved, and also energy saved and time saved for the people with a range of chronic conditions. The coalition were advised to do this in 2018, but they chose not to act. Only an Albanese Labor government will act to save people money. Equally, we're looking out for doctors, who now have seen a tripling of their bulk-billing incentive for medical bulk-billing. In Hasluck, this has risen to 72 per cent in six months. The cap on the cost of scripts has seen over 240,000 reduced scripts in Hasluck, meaning people there are sharing in the savings of around $3 million. In the education space in Hasluck, public schools, principals and teachers are giving me fantastic feedback for the historic agreement for the Albanese government together with the Cook Labor government to now fund all public schools 100 per cent of the resourcing standard by 2026. The focus will first be on the needy schools, who'll get the extra funding in 2025. This means more supports for teachers and more help for the students who need it. Then there is our fee-free TAFE policy. We believe in everybody who wants to pursue further education. We back you in. To this end, we've committed $1.5 billion for 500,000 fee-free TAFE places and vocational education across Australia from 2023 to 2026. For my North Metropolitan TAFE in Midland, it has been transformative, as student enrolments have increased many times over. Hasluck students in the areas of teaching, nursing, midwifery, early childhood education and social work will also now begin to be able to access paid prac support. Being able to access this from next year will assist them in completing their education and joining the workforce in these areas of need. Every resident in Hasluck will save on their energy bills this year, with a total of $700 off energy bills thanks to the coordinated efforts of both the Albanese government and the state Cook Labor government. This, of course, is expected to have the added benefit of reducing inflationary pressures. The cost-of-living relief really builds on what we already delivered with the energy bill relief in December 2022. At that time, the government capped gas prices on the east coast, a measure which the coalition again voted against. This government's timely actions had the effect of shielding Australian families and businesses, who also receive the benefit of this energy bill relief, from global energy price shocks. The Albanese government's Future Made in Australia Bill was introduced to parliament this week. This is the absolute pinnacle, I think; it will be a legacy for this government well into the future. It will deliver jobs and a sustainable future for all. Economy 5081 16:49 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman As we round out this sitting of parliament and head into the winter recess, I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the point we've reached after two years of this Labor government. As we head home, Australians are facing a winter of discontent. We have had four months in a row of accelerating core inflation; in fact, we are the only G10 country which has seen inflation go up since December. On top of our homegrown inflation problem, we have now had five consecutive quarters of negative or flat GDP-per-person growth, so we are now firmly in an entrenched household recession. And households across Australia, including in my community of the Redlands, are feeling it. Since this Labor government was elected, we've seen real wages collapsing by nearly nine per cent, living standards falling by eight per cent. Household savings reduced by almost 10 per cent. Prices on goods have risen by around 10 per cent. And homeowners with a typical mortgage of $750,000 are some $35,000 a year worse off. Despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in this chamber to try to paint a rosy picture, households in my community know that they are worse off than they were two years ago, and the data demonstrates this. Headline inflation has risen to four per cent, and core inflation, the RBA's preferred measure, has risen to 4.4 per cent in the latest figures. Perversely, at a time of rising inflation, we have economic growth stagnating. Our annual GDP growth in the latest results was a mere 1.1 per cent. Outside of the pandemic period, this is the weakest annual growth since 1991. This is increasing pressure on the RBA to further increase interest rates, which would be the 13th rate rise under Labor's watch. Over recent days, we've seen the market move to factor in the prospect of further rate rises later this year. The most worrying aspect of these economic numbers and the economic reality facing our communities is the risk of stagflation. Stagflation is where inflation keeps rising despite slowing economic conditions. As we saw in the 1970s, the cure for stagflation is repeated punishing interest rate increases to force a reset. Sadly, that would mean a recession and significant job losses. We are certainly in a bad place, and we are there due largely to the mismanagement and wrong priorities of this government. Labor's answer to every problem this nation is facing is more government. Sadly, the approach from Labor on every issue, whether it be energy costs, housing, manufacturing, skills shortages or defence recruitment and retention, has been to repeatedly deal with the symptoms of these problems instead of the underlying cause. In my community of the Redlands, we are seeing the real results of Labor's wrong priorities. At a time when my growing community desperately needs investment, the Labor government has cut the Stronger Communities Program, which provided $1.2 million of invaluable funding to different community and sporting groups over the last eight years; it has cut the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which has delivered $13 million to the Redlands since 2020; it has cut the Mobile Black Spot Program, which has been used to fund infrastructure upgrades on Stradbroke Island and Russell Island; and our islands have been made ineligible for the Growing Regions Program, which has seen multiple grants of over $10 million delivered to projects in other communities. It's now clear that none of the 12 commitments promised by Labor for local projects within my electorate will be delivered by the end of this parliamentary term. Some are delayed, many are stalled and some appear totally doomed. But, while Labor has neglected the Redlands over the last two years, I've been working to ensure that long-term commitments made by the coalition to the Redlands were not abandoned by this government. I've been able to ensure funding wasn't withdrawn for the Wellington Street-Panorama Drive duplication project from Redland Hospital stage 1 works and from the Redlands Head to Health facility and the Critical Minerals Accelerator Initiative at Cleveland. In total, that's $83.6 million in federal investment saved for Redlands projects. Of course over the last two years we've also been able to see over 586,000 local community sporting and service organisations receive grants through 87 federal grants that I was happy to support through my work. Australia and the Redlands just can't afford another three years of Labor. Australians deserve better; Australians deserve a strong government that's willing to make tough decisions to get us back on track. Abidi, Mr Erfanullah 5082 16:54 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today I want to tell the story of one of my constituents, Erfanullah Abidi. Erfan and his wife, Manizha, their three young sons—Mowahid, Tawhid and Zahid—and his parents were on the last Australian flight out of Kabul airport at the fall of Kabul. In his words, their lives changed irreversibly on 15 August 2021 when the republican government of Afghanistan unexpectedly collapsed, plunging their once-normal existence into the depths of chaos and uncertainty. As an interpreter and cultural advisor, he had already found himself on the hate list of insurgent groups owing to his role in supporting the Afghan government. However, the abrupt fall of Kabul to the Taliban while he was on duty with an NGO marked a harrowing turning point. Overnight, he was thrust into a desperate struggle for survival, navigating a city under siege and constantly moving from one place to the other as Taliban forces combed the neighbourhoods in search of perceived enemies. In the midst of this turmoil, he and his family clung to a fragile thread of hope through their ongoing visa applications. The process was agonisingly slow, complicated further by the escalating crisis in their precarious circumstances. They persevered, reaching out to authorities and international organisations, desperate for any means of escape from the tightening grip of the Taliban. Erfan tells the story of days of sleepless vigilance and hunger at Kabul airport, literally standing and unable to move, holding their children above their heads so they didn't stop breathing in the crush. They finally managed to board an emergency evacuation flight and arrived in Adelaide on 1 September 2021. Landing in a foreign land as refugees, they were thrust into a daunting reality: starting anew from scratch in a country vastly different from their own. The shock and trauma weighed heavily on them all, exacerbated by the constant anxiety over the fate of loved ones left behind in Afghanistan, including Erfan's only brother and his family—still in grave danger under Taliban rule. My office and the minister here today assisted Erfan's family to reunite: his brother, sister-in-law and their children arrived in Adelaide some months ago. Despite being safe, Erfan has continued to be an advocate for those still in Afghanistan. The plight of Afghan women and girls under Taliban rule emerged as a critical focus for his advocacy efforts. Despite global outrage and campaigns like the hashtag #LetAfghanGirlsLearn, the Taliban 's repressive policies persist, including the closure of schools and restrictions on women's freedoms. Through clandestine meetings with local elders, former civil activists, educators and concerned friends, Erfan and his colleagues devised a daring plan to establish underground schools for girls. These covert educational initiatives aimed not only to defy Taliban edicts but also to instil hope and resilience in a generation of Afghan girls who risked losing their future to oppression. The first school opened with just 20 brave students in February 2022. Encouraged by overwhelming community support and donations, they expanded rapidly, and today they operate 15 such schools, providing education to over 300 girls. The curriculum blends traditional subjects with crucial lessons in civil and human rights, equipping these young girls with not just the knowledge but the tools to challenge injustice and build a better future. Each school operates under a strict security protocol, crafted in collaboration with parents and community leaders, ensuring the safety of both students and teachers amid the ever-present threat of Taliban reprisal. As Erfan says, these schools have become more than just places of learning; they are sanctuaries of hope and empowerment. This community-driven effort ensures that every girl who walks through the doors knows she is not forgotten and that her education and empowerment matter deeply to a global community that refuses to turn away. Beyond the classroom, the impact reverberates through Afghan communities, where students armed with new-found knowledge and confidence become ambassadors for change. They teach their peers and families, multiplying the reach of the mission far beyond each student. In a country where hope is a scarce commodity, these girls are beacons of resilience, defying the darkness of oppression with each lesson learned and shared. For anyone who would like to support the Afghan schools for girls, donations can be made to Circle of Friends Australia Incorporated—select Empowerment Network 132. I would like to finish by congratulating Erfan and Manizha on the birth of their new daughter, Nahid, two months ago, and also on a book, The Afghan Interpreter, and a film about his story. House adjourned at 17:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( M r s Andrew s ) took the chair at 09:30.

Thursday, 4 July 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( M r s Andrew s ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 5083 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Dental Health 5083 09:30 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith It's frankly madness that Australia doesn't already have dental under Medicare. It's deeply disappointing that this Labor government refuses to expand Medicare to cover dental care. We know that in one year 2.3 million Australians skipped or delayed seeing the dentist because they couldn't afford to pay for it. In a cost-of-living crisis, we know that there are millions of Australians right now already struggling to pay the rent and already skipping meals. If they do have a tooth infection, a toothache or oral health problems, right now they have to skip seeing the dentist because for some reason our public health system doesn't cover one of the major components, and often one of the most important components, of our health and health care. In one year, in 2021, 20,000 Queenslanders were admitted to hospital because of preventable oral health and dental health problems. We know that 44 per cent of low-income older residents often skip seeing the dentist because they can't afford to pay. It is unacceptable that in a wealthy country like Australia, where fossil fuel corporations get away with making billions of dollars in revenue and often paying zero dollars in tax, this government can't find it within itself to raise taxes on big corporations and billionaires and use that to fund covering dental under Medicare. If this government really cared about Medicare, the way to defend it would be to expand it to cover every part of our body. What is the rational reason why our Medicare doesn't cover oral health? If you chat to any emergency ward nurse or anyone in the public hospital system, they'll tell you that they see people being admitted to ER wards with oral health infections, tooth infections, tooth abscesses and heart conditions that are caused as a result of not being able to afford to go to the dentist and get a cheap check-up. The reality is that, if we did bring dental under Medicare, it would save funding over the long term for the government because preventive health—making sure people can go and get a check-up or go and get that tooth filling rather than waiting a couple of years and going to the emergency ward with a massive tooth abscess and infection and, potentially, heart disease as a result of not being able to go there—is a lot cheaper to the public health system than an admission to the emergency ward. We know that in 2010, with the balance of power, the Greens were able to get dental into Medicare for kids—3.4 million kids. The next time the Greens have the balance of power—potentially after the next election—the next thing we're going to fight for is making sure every Australian in this country has dental under Medicare and can go to the dentist and get a check-up for free. Scullin Volunteer Awards 5083 09:33 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to bring people together to celebrate the extraordinary contribution of volunteers from across the Scullin electorate through the Scullin Volunteer Awards, an annual event which is part of National Volunteer Week in late May. Volunteers play critical roles in our society, helping build and sustain stronger, resilient and supportive communities at a local, national and, indeed, international level. Volunteering is inspirational. Volunteers give their time, energy and skills to support others and often gain some personal satisfaction from that too. The purpose of the Scullin Volunteer Awards was to acknowledge all those community members who have been making significant volunteering contributions to the community. I think about people like Amanda Rodgers and Halime Alpogut from the Lalor Neighbourhood House, who've been involved in a process that's about not just revitalising a physical space but giving so much back to a community they love. Similarly, Lea Thornton and Petkana Parmakovska dedicate so much of their time and their energy and, in Petkana's case in particular, her extraordinary crafting skills to the Thomastown Neighbourhood House, constructing local community projects. The projects, which have been developed by these four amazing people, have significantly enhanced community engagement, making the area safer and more supportive, particularly for younger families new to the area. These are four of many. I want to also recognise what a privilege it was to meet Tyson Taylor, a man who served in Afghanistan and who has since been involved in so many activities—caring for the sick, responding to the Queensland floods and the Victorian bushfires and being involved in the COVID response. For the last two years, Tyson has volunteered as an honorary governor of the Shrine of Remembrance, teaching children and the wider community about the sacrifice of our veterans whilst also delivering important services. Another volunteer I want to particularly recognise is Peter Charles Duncome, who not only served in the Australian Army for over 42 years but has volunteered for the Royal Children's Hospital Good Friday Appeal for more than 53 years, in addition to his role as an active member of our local Epping RSL committee. I also think about people like Judy Franklin, Puneet Tikoo and my friend John Fry, who have been part of the Whittlesea Community Connections L2P program, helping young people, particularly new migrants and often people from refugee backgrounds, get their Ps—such an important connector to the possibilities of work and wider social connection. It was such an honour to be in this room filled with so many people who have given so much to so many others. I want to thank all of those volunteers but also those who have taken the time to recognise the service of those they know who contribute so much to those around them. Domestic and Family Violence 5084 09:36 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls As we know, in April there were a range of rallies around this nation which expressed frustration and anger about the scourge that is violence against women and family violence. I attended one of those rallies in my electorate, in Cobram. That community had just been through a tragedy of a woman losing her life, and the rawness and the anger were palpable. There were many speakers that day, one of whom was Nicole. She spoke of her experiences of violence and coercion at the hands of a partner, and she was disappointed in the way that some in the community had not taken her experience seriously. She and others spoke also about systemic failure, in many cases in relation to apprehended violence orders. There were many placards that day, but the one that affected me the most was a placard that said: 'What do we want? Peace in men's hearts.' I said at the time, after the event, that I think most men do have peace in their hearts, but, for those who don't, if you reach out and get help and change your behaviour, you have courage, and, if you allow your anger and your problems to spill over into hurting women, you are a coward. On Tuesday I co-hosted a forum with Senator Pocock and the member for Cowper, amongst others, in which we tried to unpack some of these issues. The overwhelming impetus for the forum and the start of the discussion was that men need to be in the room, men need to be in the conversation and men need to be welcome to be in the conversation. The 'All men are toxic and broken' narrative doesn't help us to get where we need to. We heard from many people, including Dr Zac Seidler, who made some excellent points in relation to the causes of this violent behaviour. He made the point that young boys don't think they're going to grow up to hurt women. So something happens as they're growing up that's a source of deep unhappiness. We've got to find ways to intervene as a community, as a society, to try and stop that unhappiness and those problems spilling over into violence against women. He made a number of other points, including that culturally we need to make it so we're proud of the achievements of our girlfriends, wives, partners, so that sense of equality exists. The member for Cowper came up with some excellent examples of intervention programs in Indonesia and a compulsory part of the curriculum that talks about respectful relationships. I think we should look at doing that here. Wall, Ms Kimba 5084 09:39 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise today to celebrate a remarkable young woman, Kimba Wall, who lives in my electorate of Isaacs. Kimba, at 34 years old, lives with Down syndrome, yet this does not define her. Kimba stands as a powerful reminder of what we can accomplish when we look beyond labels and focus on potential, determination and passion. From an early age, Kimba's life has been filled with music and performance. At just seven years old, she broke new ground by becoming the first young person in Australia with Down syndrome to feature in an advertising campaign for a national retailer, Target. And, for the past eight years, Kimba has been a member of the BAM Allstars, an extraordinary arts group where individuals with additional needs can shine as performers. Through BAM, Kimba has showcased her acting, singing and dancing talents at iconic Melbourne events. She's performed at the Melbourne Zoo, the Werribee park zoo, the St Kilda Festival, fashion week in Bendigo and Google HQ. I'll also highlight her extraordinary performances at Government House during Australia Day celebrations. True to her unyielding blissful spirit, she shared much-needed dance tips with the then Victorian Governor, Linda Dessau AC. Her story, as shared in this brief speech today, becomes even more remarkable. In 2023, Kimba starred in a short film produced by BAM called The Healer that was later entered into the Focus on Ability film festival. The festival highlights short films about people with special needs and reaches audiences in 43 countries. Kimba and her co-star were nominated for best actor and were announced as joint winners. The Healer also won best film. Kimba delivered a fantastic acceptance speech to a capacity audience in Sydney, proudly representing BAM. However, Kimba is most proud of her long involvement with the Chelsea SES in my electorate of Isaacs. She served as the official SES ambassador, and her father, Phil, has been a dedicated volunteer for over two decades. But, of course, there's more to this story. In April 2022, Kimba embarked on a groundbreaking adventure. She became one of the first individuals with Down syndrome to be a fully-fledged Victoria State Emergency Service member. Having completed her training as a crew member supervised, she also contributes to the community engagement, fundraising and awareness team. Kimba deservedly wears the SES orange uniform with immense pride. Kimba's motto is: 'I love my life.' It reflects her resolve, optimism and determination to change impossibilities to possibilities. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09:42 to 09:53 Mr DREYFUS HWG Her untiring positive approach inspires and motivates genuine inclusion for those around her. Kimba Wall reflects the best of us. Her story is a powerful reminder of the extraordinary things that can be achieved when we refuse to be defined by limitations. She sees what is possible where others do not. To you, Kimba, I express my heartfelt gratitude for all that you do. Your remarkable achievements and contributions to our community have and will continue to transcend any perceived limitations. Thank you. Haughton Pipeline 5085 09:54 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert One of the key commitments I made before being elected to this House was $200 million in funding for stage 2 of the Haughton pipeline. That funding was contingent on a business case, something that was publicly ridiculed by then mayor Jenny Hill, her Labor 'Team Hill' councillors, the three Townsville based state Labor MPs and the Labor state government. Today it is the biggest disaster of public works projects in the history of our city. Almost 10 years ago, Townsville's main water source, the Ross River Dam, reached dangerous lows of 14 per cent. A water security taskforce was set up and determined that a new pipeline should be built to pump water from the Burdekin dam. Stage 1 received funding and support and was completed in 2020, yet not a single drop of water has flown through it. That's because in 2019 the federal coalition committed a further $200 million for stage 2 of the project, which would take the pipeline from halfway to the Burdekin to all the way. Building stage 2 immediately after stage 1 was supposed to save tens of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, Labor mayor Jenny Hill and the state Labor government decided to be politic and refused to accept the federal funding based on a lie about the funding's potential effect on Queensland's GST allocation. They had a bells-and-whistles press conference to announce they'd fund the project without federal funds. Twelve months later it was announced that the disastrous decision had led to lengthy delays and a $79 million cost blowout to be footed by Townsville ratepayers. Now, three years later, the maladministration of ratepayer funds is far worse than anyone ever imagined. Two weeks ago I wrote to Townsville's acting mayor and former team Hill councillor Paul Jacob to provide me with an urgent briefing on the project. The silence has been deafening, with not even a mention in the council budget last week. Several whistleblowers from Townsville City Council have now taken matters into their own hands and contacted me with information. That includes evidence of a council document which shows our community has been lied to. The information provided to me shows a project cost increase from $179.6 million to over $420 million—more than 133 per cent—as well as a project completion blowout of more than four years. The key reason for this disastrous disgrace is identified as the refusal from team Labor to accept federal funding when it was offered. Adding further insult to injury, I also understand a costly consultant has now been on the books for almost two years to identify ways to mop up Labor's disastrous mess, which includes putting out the begging bowl to Queensland and federal governments for an additional $146 million. I urgently call on Townsville city councillors, state Labor MPs and the state Labor government to explain to the people of Townsville why they should not resign immediately and why a full investigation should not be conducted. Morlancourt 5085 09:57 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise today and I'm very pleased to speak about a visit I made to a very special residential aged-care community in my electorate. This aged-care community is called Morlancourt, which is operated by RSL Care at Angle Park, in the federal seat of Adelaide. RSL Care South Australia is a proud not-for-profit charitable care provider that has served the ex-service and wider community of South Australia for over 100 years, celebrating its official centenary in 2015. The organisation offers a number of accommodation and support options for residential aged care, retirement living and affordable housing for all South Australians, with various locations throughout South Australia. A few weeks ago, on 19 June, I had the honour and pleasure of visiting Morlancourt and had a tour of the premises and spoke to some of the residents and staff. They had organised a morning tea with the residents, the majority of whom were, of course, veterans and family member of veterans from World War II, in fact, and the Korean War, as well as an increasing cohort of Vietnam veterans who are now entering residential aged care, which is a challenge for the sector that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is working on, due to the need to transition a new generation of veterans into aged care in a supported manner. We know that those people that served in Vietnam, those veterans, are reaching that age now—they are in their 70s and onwards—that will require residential aged care. The CEO of RSL Care, a former Australian Army East Timor veteran, Nathan Klinge, also praised the efforts of Minister Keogh, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in this regard. They've been talking about this particular issue. While at Morlancourt, I was proud to present Nathan and the residents with a flag that was flown in the House of Representatives. I was also able to announce a $7,841 grant awarded under the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants Program which the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Keogh, had approved. That money will be used to install military memorabilia display cabinets, and they showed me the area where they would go up, for the veterans to be able to have a fantastic display area. I'd like to thank Nathan, Wellbeing Coordinator Markella Bolimos and the RSL Care team for the tremendous work they do to support our veterans in South Australia. Energy 5086 10:00 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Here's another dose of Monash common sense from Russell Broadbent. One thing that I have always held up very high, as the member for Monash—and, formerly, the member for McMillan, and the member for Corinella before that—is that I have a duty of care not only to the people that I represent locally but also to the nation. We are parliamentary representatives—and I have the greatest respect for every member of parliament who comes into this place with a view to putting Australians and their best interests first and having a duty of care towards them. As to that duty of care, have you ever thought for a minute why there isn't already a nuclear plant here in Australia? Well, we have one—but a major nuclear power plant? There is one very good reason. It's that we have an abundance of natural resources in coal and gas. How dare it be written, as it was in one of the newspapers I read on the weekend, that coal is the cheapest form of electricity! Coal powerfully grew the Hunter Valley. It powerfully grew the Latrobe Valley and gave Victoria an abundance of cheap power. We have so much gas underground in Victoria, it's nearly bubbling to the top by itself. But there's a moratorium in Victoria that says: 'We lack common sense. We are going to cut both our hands off in regard to energy so we can't use these amazing natural resources that we have.' If we don't address that, and exercise our duty of care towards the Australian people, we are going to end up having maybe not brownouts but running out of power in some spots. So we'll just switch off Bendigo for a while, or we'll take the biggest business we can find and tell them: 'You're going to have to curtail what you're using at the moment. We're going to have to cut your gas down for a while, so you won't be able to operate that day. Can you agree with that?' My wife had a day this week without power and she went through all the issues. I said, 'Look, I've got this fantastic battery boiler; you can put it onto the car, a six-volt battery, and boil yourself a cup of coffee.' Well, it worked, but it took an hour and a half to boil. I mean, there are restrictions on other, alternative methods of getting something boiled. We get electricity when we boil water and put steam through a turbine. And what's the damning part? Where do people attack us? They come along and say, 'Look this pollution in the Latrobe Valley,' and they show a picture of steam coming off the cooling towers! Yes, you can see the smoke stacks as well. But what we desperately need to do is to make sure that those coal-fired power plants in and around my electorate are still there and pumping away. We've got to put energy and exercise into looking after those power plants. Shortland Electorate: Health Care 5086 10:03 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I'm pleased to update the House on the latest commitment from the Albanese Labor government to strengthen Medicare and improve the health outcomes of people in my community. Last month, I was pleased to have the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, visiting the Shortland electorate, where he spoke with local GPs, pharmacists, healthcare workers and aged-care workers and residents. While he was in the Hunter, Mark Butler announced that the Albanese Labor government would establish a new Medicare urgent care clinic to service Lake Macquarie and Newcastle, taking pressure off the John Hunter Hospital's emergency department. Almost 40 per cent of presentations to the John's ED are for non-urgent and semi-urgent cases—in other words, cases where patients do need to see a doctor but don't necessarily need to go to a hospital emergency department. That's where the Newcastle-Lake Macquarie Medicare urgent care clinic will help out. It will be open for extended hours, seven days a week, providing care for urgent but non-life-threatening issues. No appointments will be required and patients will be fully bulk-billed. Let me repeat that: fully bulk-billed. The aim is for the new Medicare urgent care clinic to be up and running in the next six to 12 months. I know this new clinic will make a big difference for the Hunter, just like the Lake Haven Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has for the northern Central Coast. That clinic opened in December last year and is now seeing, on average, just over 300 patients per week, relieving pressure on Belmont and Wyong hospitals' emergency departments. That's right: 300 fewer visits to emergency departments, completely bulk-billed at Lake Haven. Importantly, the Newcastle-Lake Macquarie Medicare urgent care clinic will work in conjunction with the Hunter's GP access after-hours service, which the Albanese government saved and fully restored with $28.7 million in funding after it was cut by the coalition. This was a critical election promise I took to the last election, and I'm delighted to see it fulfilled and a much loved Hunter institution saved and renewed. Labor created Medicare and, after a decade of cuts and neglect from the Liberal and National parties, the Albanese Labor government has been working hard over the last two years to restore and strengthen the Medicare system. As well as investing in the Medicare urgent care clinics and saving the Hunter's GP access after-hours service, we've increased the number of GPs working in the Hunter and Central Coast by allowing overseas-trained doctors and Commonwealth bonded doctors to practise there. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive for GPs—the biggest investment ever in bulk-billing—and we've frozen the cost of medicines on the PBS. I know there's more work to do, but I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is working hard to deliver better health care for people in my community. Everything Suarve, BUSY School 5087 10:06 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff For many young people, traditional education just doesn't fit. As a result, they become disengaged and sometimes lost. In June I had the great privilege to visit Everything Suarve, or Esuarve, an organisation that offers alternative learning through a 10-week big-brother program for youths aged 16 to 24, with my Gold Coast colleagues, my very good friends, the member for Fadden, who's here in the chamber, and the member for Forde. It was truly one of the more emotional and moving youth visits that I have experienced. Surrounded by genuine love and support, Esuarve programs target disengaged youth to give them a sense of belonging and purpose while they work through their trauma and reconnect with their community. Esuarve founder Joseph Te Puni-Fromont established the organisation in 2020 to offer young people life skills, development, education and employment pathways, and over 230 young men and women have participated, of which 90 per cent—a very high rate—have found employment and been reintegrated with society as a result of the programs. During the visit, we were welcomed into their inner sanctum to witness the group of young men and women receive their light-green T-shirt and wear it as a badge of honour for those young people that have gone through the program. It signifies their completion and also joining the Esuarve family for life. After that point, they belong at Esuarve forever. These sorts of learning models are on the rise because they are proven to work and have such a profound impact on the lives of young people. Another organisation is BUSY Girls+ in Southport, an example of an alternative education setting for students who don't fit that traditional model. I was also very grateful to join the BUSY team along with state member for Southport Rob Molhoek for the official opening of the newest campus. BUSY Girls+ provides an alternative approach that has already supported hundreds of young people to regain their confidence, graduate with their Queensland certificate of education and start a career path. With limited student numbers, smaller classroom sizes and individualised learning, the Southport campus provides young women with an opportunity to re-engage with their education in a more supportive environment. BUSY Schools are part of the BUSY Group, a not-for-profit organisation that delivers a range of employment services, apprenticeship support and vocational skills training across Australia. BUSY is an acronym for Backing Unemployed Southport Youth. It was founded by a Gold Coaster, Martin Punch, over 45 years ago with the goal to change the lives of homeless and young people on the Gold Coast. I look forward to seeing these two organisations grow to support thousands more Gold Coasters who need that extra help and support. Well done to those two schools. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 5087 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Schools 5087 10:09 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) only 1.3 per cent of public schools nationally receive their full schooling resource standard funding, while 98 per cent of private schools are currently overfunded; (b) in Queensland this year, public schools will be underfunded by $1.7 billion, which is approximately $3,000 per student; (c) schools like Indooroopilly State High School, in the electoral division of Ryan, are so overcrowded that students do not go to the bathroom because the lines are so long; and (d) public schools should be genuinely free for all students; and (2) calls on the Government to make public schools genuinely free and immediately lift funding to deliver 100 per cent of schooling resource standard funding to every public school in the country. If politics is about choices, why is it that this Labor government chooses low taxes for billionaires and big corporations and then chronically underfunds public schools? We know that, right now, only 1.3 per cent of public schools across Australia are fully funded under the Gonski scheme, and that's really only the schools in the ACT. This year, Queensland public schools will be underfunded to the tune of $1.7 billion. In my electorate of Griffith, that's $53 million in 2022, which means that schools like Cavendish Road State High School is underfunded by $4.8 million, Balmoral State High School is underfunded by $2.4 million, Whites Hill State College is underfunded by $2.5 million and Narbethong State Special School is underfunded by $28,000 per student. This has awful impacts on our public education system, and it beggars belief when Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and when fossil fuel corporations and big corporations like Coles and Woolworths and the big banks have record profits—the Commonwealth Bank alone recorded a $10 billion profit. That $10 billion is enough to fully fund public schools, but it's going into the coffers of the Commonwealth Bank in the form of profit instead. The government does have the power to raise taxes on those big corporations and fully fund our public schools but, instead, they choose low taxes on big corporations and chronic underfunding of public schools. The impacts are many and disgraceful, frankly, in a wealthy country like Australia. We know that, over the next few years, 40 per cent of public schools surveyed are going to run out of space. There's talk about mould in classrooms and air conditioners that don't work. But, more importantly in a way, it deprives students and teachers of the time and resources they need to provide the best education they can. Ask any public school teacher and they'll tell you they're chronically overworked, classroom sizes are too big and, often, they're having to dip into their own pockets just to cover the basics to make those schools function. The idea of free public education in Australia is a bit of a lie. Every parent knows—or the vast majority of parents know—that schools are going to ask them to pay voluntary student fees, which, if they don't pay, often means that their kids don't get to participate in sport or any of the other extracurricular activities. This means, right now, we have a system where parents of public school students are having to pay extra just to make the schools function because the federal government refuses to fully fund public education. What we know is that, over the last few years, the Productivity Commission has found that real per-student government spending on private schools grew by 3.7 per cent a year in the decade to 2022. That's 60 per cent higher growth than for public schools, which only saw a 2.3 per cent annual increase. So there was more of an increase in funding for private schools than there was an increase in funding for public schools. We know that five private schools spent, over a decade, more money on their facilities than did 3,000 public schools. That is deeply unacceptable—again, in a country like Australia that apparently prides itself on equal opportunity and its egalitarian society. The other impacts are many. If you have a situation in a cost-of-living crisis where parents have less capacity to pay—especially in working-class or poor areas——it just means those public schools get less funding. What that means is that teachers can't be paid as much, schools can't hire as many teachers as they need to hire and, so, we have a flow-on effect where teachers are being chronically overworked, experienced teachers are becoming burnt out as a result of having to deal with much-too-large classes and much-too-high workloads, and then we're losing experienced teachers, which puts more of a burden on the new teachers coming in, which increases the burnout, and that's partly what has caused the massive teacher shortage across Australia. We know that it's tough for those teachers, especially in rural and regional areas and poor and working-class areas, and it's tough for those families who can't afford to pay more to the school to offset the chronic government underfunding. The teachers then have to deal with difficult situations in the classroom, but they don't have the funding or support to do it. Despite all of that, public school teachers do a heroic job, as do P&Cs and student and parent committees in making up for that chronic underfunding. But why is it that so often the burden falls on teachers, students and parents to make up for the fact that the government has chosen, for whatever reason, low taxes for big corporations and chronic underfunding of public education? The frustration here is that they could fix this, they could tax big corporations and they could fully fund our public schools. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms Watson-Brown 300127 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:15 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I thank the member for Griffith for bringing on this private member's motion in relation to schooling resource standard funding because it gives us an opportunity to talk about how the Albanese government is determined to make our education system better and fairer, particularly for electorates like mine, in which regional schools and many remote schools have been, for a long time, underfunded. Sixteen billion dollars is being invested as additional funding, representing the biggest ever increase in Commonwealth funding to public schools. Our government is committed to working with the Northern Territory government to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level. Most schools across Australia have already had the formulas in terms of Gonski at a level. Could we put in more resources and funding? Absolutely, but, if you look at the Northern Territory alone, particularly our remote communities, if we talk about discrimination, for the Northern Territory remote schools, Gonski funding was negligible. I'm pleased to be part of a government that is looking at lifting those levels so that we can target those schools to try and get better outcomes in terms of attendance and give a lot of those Aboriginal kids in remote communities a future and hope for a future. On 13 March the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government signed a statement to increase funding to all public schools in the Northern Territory to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard by 2029. That is significant because, as I said, particularly for remote communities and regional towns, the funding was simply not there. Under the agreement, the Australian government will invest at least an additional $737.7 million from 2025 to 2029 in Northern Territory public schools. The Northern Territory government has committed to invest an additional $350 million over the same period. That is a substantial injection of funding into public schools in the Northern Territory. This funding will be targeted to the most disadvantaged schools first and will implement important reforms that will improve student outcomes. Our most disadvantaged students will greatly benefit from this extra funding. The more funding that is available, the more teaching resources we can get into classrooms and the more likely we can get our kids to focus and learn. There are many challenges facing the Northern Territory, with high concentrations of disadvantage. I agree with the member for Griffith: we have to support our teachers, and we've got a lot of teachers doing it tough, particularly in our remote communities. When I travel throughout the Northern Territory and my electorate, I have to applaud those teachers. They are doing a fantastic job, and they do it tough, but they stay there because they care, because they want to give those kids a future. That's what we've got to work towards. Is the funding good enough? It never is, because we're starting from a very low base. But I am pleased to be able to stand with Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and Jason Clare, the federal Minister for Education, and the $40 million that was invested into Central Australia, particularly to look at learning on country and to be able to turn around the really tough statistics in terms of getting our kids to go to school every day and to give them a better start in life. Is it perfect? No, it's not. But it is a start, and I think that it is important to recognise that finally there is a government that cares, that does want better outcomes, particularly for Aboriginal kids in remote communities, so that we can give them hope and a better future through an education system that is going to be inclusive for them, because the education system to date has been exclusive. It has not included our kids. I think that this extra funding, the better resourcing, the infrastructure and the support to teachers and to families means better outcomes for those kids and for their future. 10:20 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Public schools in this country are in crisis. Only 1.3 per cent of public schools nationally receive their full schooling resource standard funding. Meanwhile, 98 per cent of private schools are currently overfunded. This federal government spends more money on private schools than on public. This underfunding of public schools is having real consequences for students across my electorate and across Australia. Ryan has a relatively high proportion of school students attending public schools, and these are excellent schools with fantastic teachers, but they're not being funded to keep up. We have the real numbers on the funding shortfall. We know how much each school falls short of the schooling resource standard: Ashgrove State School with a $1.7 million funding shortfall; Kenmore South State School with a $2.5 million funding shortfall; Ferny Grove State High School with a $5.3 million funding shortfall; The Gap State School with a $1.5 million shortfall; Mitchelton Special School with a $1 million funding shortfall, which is almost $12,000 per student; Ironside State School with a $2.3 million funding shortfall; and the biggest funding shortfall is at Indooroopilly State High School, which is underfunded by a whopping $6.3 million. This has had a drastic consequence on the school and the students. Students queue for the bathroom for their whole lunchbreak because there aren't enough toilets. Some students haven't even seen the inside of a science lab because there aren't enough specialised classrooms. They've lost their student support space, and huge parts of their oval have been lost to demountables. They almost had to forgo a library entirely to make room for more classrooms. Fortunately, we managed to stop the loss of the library thanks to the great work of the P&C, assisted by the state member for Maiwar, Michael Berkman, and my office. This achieved just a few extra demountables, a stopgap that will not last. The state Labor government has callously refused to commit to any new classrooms. It's beyond shameful that our community has had to beg for the bare minimum—somewhere for the kids to sit for class, extra temporary classrooms. Meanwhile, private schools are raking in cash from the government and building elaborate drama theatres, state-of-the-art science labs, Olympic swimming pools and the like. Private schools spend more than double the amount per student that public schools spend on infrastructure, and the government will hand out a further $2.7 billion over the next decade, while public schools will get nothing. The way we fund public schools in Australia is utterly broken. Every child deserves to have access to a good education, no matter their background. It's fundamental for their wellbeing, and it should be regarded as an investment in Australia's future, not a cost that governments try to weasel their way out of paying. And yet, this year in Queensland alone, public schools will be underfunded by $1.7 billion. That's $3,000 per child. That's not just a dollar amount for our communities; that's kids missing out on music classes, sport or a functioning library. It's not having enough classroom teachers and teacher aides. Our amazing teachers and teacher aides, already overworked, are picking up the slack and regularly working weekends. It means that children who need extra support to learn go without. In fact, public special schools are underfunded by a minimum of $11,000 per student, and, tragically, for some schools the figure is much higher. That's not to mention increasing out-of-pocket costs for parents for supposedly free public schools—thousands of dollars every year for each student for laptops and iPads, stationery, textbooks and excursions. It's unacceptable that parents are having to close this funding gap due to government failure. This federal government refuses to increase its meagre investment in public schools, but the money is there. They're bragging about an $18 billion budget surplus. They're spending tens of billions of dollars every year on fossil fuel subsidies that make the climate crisis worse and on investor tax concessions that make the housing crisis worse. They're forecasting almost half a trillion dollars on nuclear submarines, and yet our children are forced to learn in overcrowded classrooms in overcrowded schools without access to basic facilities. It's utterly shameful. 10:25 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Today I stand before you to share a vision that will shape the future of our nation—a vision of an education system that is not only better but also fairer for all students, regardless of their background or circumstances. The Albanese Labor government is determined to transform our education system and ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed. Our commitment to education is demonstrated by our pledge of an unprecedented $16 billion in additional funding for public schools. The Albanese Labor government is working closely with states and territories to bring every school to a hundred per cent of its fair funding level through the better and fairer schools agreement. In collaboration, we can ensure that every student, regardless of where they live, receives the support they need to thrive. As our federal Minister for Education has emphasised, funding is critical, but so is what it is spent on. The better and fairer schools agreement will tie funding to reforms designed to improve student outcomes, making sure that every dollar spent has a meaningful impact. I thank the member for Griffith for raising public school infrastructure, and I reiterate that, in addition to this substantial funding increase, the Albanese Labor government is also investing more than $284 million for school infrastructure through the Schools Upgrade Fund. A division h aving been called in the House of Representatives — Sitting suspended from 10:26 to 10: 40 Ms ROBERTS 157125 This investment will create better learning environments, ensuring our schools have the facilities they need to support student success. In 2024, Commonwealth funding for education has grown from $27.8 billion to $29.2 billion—a 4.9 per cent increase from 2023—specifically for public schools. This includes a rise from $10.8 billion to $11.3 billion. These numbers reflect our unwavering commitment to ensuring that every student has access to quality education. Currently we are negotiating the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement with states and territories. This agreement is a crucial opportunity to ensure that Commonwealth funding is tied to meaningful reform. As Minister Clare has pointed out, almost every new job created in today's world will require students to finish school and pursue further education. This is why the Albanese Labor government is determined to support students from all backgrounds, helping them to catch up, keep up and stay in school. When it comes to increasing funding for public schools, we have $16 billion on the table. Unlike others who might prefer a blank-cheque approach, we are focused on funding the most disadvantaged schools first and turning that funding into effective reforms. These reforms will help students catch up, keep up and complete their education, and education ministers have agreed that the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement will prioritise three key areas: equity and excellence, wellbeing for learning and engagement, and a strong, sustainable workforce. Ensuring every student has the opportunity to fulfil their potential is beneficial not only for them but also for our country. By tying funding to reform, we can make our education system better and fairer, closing the education gap in the process. This is not just an investment in education; it is an investment in the future of our nation. We are making significant progress towards our commitment to achieving 100 per cent fair funding for every school. The Western Australian and Northern Territory governments have already signed statements of intent to reach this goal. For Western Australia, this means an additional $774.4 million dollars in public school funding from 2025 to 2029, ensuring that the most disadvantaged schools are fully funded first. By 2026 every child in Western Australia will attend a fully funded school. Similarly, the federal and Northern Territory governments have agreed to increase funding for all public schools in the Northern Territory to 100 per cent of the school resource standard by 2029. The Australian government will invest in an additional $73.7 million for 2025 to 2029, with the Northern Territory government contributing at least an additional $350 million. This agreement prioritises the most disadvantaged schools and increases the Commonwealth's share of funding from 20 per cent to 40 per cent by 2029. The coalition's legacy in education has been one of widening gaps and declining outcomes. The Productivity Commission found that, under the coalition's schools agreement, the equity gap in schools widened significantly. Disadvantaged school students were three times more likely to fall behind, with 86,000 students not meeting basic literacy or numeracy standards. Attendance rates fell, high school completion rates declined, teacher shortages worsened and the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students grew. Our vision is clear: by working together and committing to these reforms, the government, educators, parents and the community can make our education system better and fairer. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Housing 5091 10:43 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of Australians; (b) Australia does not have enough homes and has not for a long time; and (c) the Government has committed to an ambitious housing reform agenda which will boost the supply of all housing, including more public and social housing, more affordable housing, more homes to rent, and more homes to buy; (2) acknowledges the $6.2 billion in new investment in the 2024-25 budget to build more homes more quickly, bringing the Government's new housing initiatives to $32 billion, which includes: (a) additional funding for the new $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness (including a doubling of Commonwealth homelessness funding to $400 million every year, matched by states and territories); (b) directing $1 billion to Housing Australia towards crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children experiencing domestic violence; (c) assisting nearly one million Australian households with the cost of rent by delivering $1.9 billion for the first back-to-back increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance in more than 30 years; and (d) providing up to $1.9 billion in concessional finance for community housing providers and other charities to support delivery of the 40,000 social and affordable homes under the Housing Australia Future Fund and National Housing Accord; and (3) further acknowledges the Government's ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. There probably isn't a greater challenge that governments right across the country face than making sure that there are enough homes being built for the Australian people. Right across the country, there is a reduction in the number of homes that are in the pipeline for approvals for planning and construction. This is seeing huge pressures placed on the spectrum across the housing sector—and it is a spectrum. If you don't have enough homes to make homes affordable for those who want to buy a home, it's going to push more people into the rental market. More people going into the rental market without more homes being built pushes up the price of rent. That's what we've seen in my electorate over the last few years, post COVID and post the return to the usual levels of migration and population growth: we've seen huge pressures in the rental market. That has also seen, across parts of Melbourne, rent rises of 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent. It has put huge pressure on people being able to afford their rent. It has stabilised a little bit, but people are still facing rent increases, and that is something that we are very conscious of. Those things also push more people outside of the private rental market and into the social and affordable housing market. That means that we need to keep up with the growing list of people who need to access social and affordable homes, including people who are fleeing their homes due to domestic violence. There are young people whose home is not safe to be in. Recently, also, we had an event where we had the Housing for the Aged Action Group here in parliament and we heard from people who had experienced homelessness—especially two really inspiring women, who talked about their experiences; there was an older woman who'd faced homelessness. It was a reminder that we must do more in this place. But there is a bit of a perfect storm at the moment, where you have the high price of producing a home; where the timeline for approvals, especially in different states and territories, can be very, very long; and where the incentives for developers to build enough homes for the private sector are really pushing against the industry. What that means right now is that we have huge targets, but there are a lot of challenges that we need to overcome in order to meet them. And this is an extremely important job. I am heartened, though, that this Albanese Labor government understands that the federal government cannot wash away its responsibilities in the housing sector. But we have to be at the table. We have to be at the table, working with state and territory governments to ensure that we are not only investing in social housing but also working with those governments to try and increase the number of homes in the pipeline, through our housing accord—through the plan to build 1.2 million homes over the next five years. There are going to be people who will use every single opportunity to oppose housing in their local community—people who are going to be stamping up and down, saying, 'We don't want any development; we don't want any new homes.' But what is that saying to the kids, the young people, and other people trying to get into the housing market? If, every time, you have a member of the Liberal Party or of the Greens opposed—and the Greens are famously against any sort of development—what does that say to young people who can't afford a home, who can't afford to get into the housing market? Every time we have people saying no to any form of new housing in our communities, those pressures inside the housing sector are going to get bigger. We have invested huge amounts of money in incentivising the states and territories to move housing through the development pipeline more quickly. We've also invested huge amounts of money in social and affordable homes. There's the Housing Australia Future Fund, which those opposite, obviously, didn't support; they didn't support the construction of 30,000 social and affordable homes, and they didn't support the construction of 4,000 places that were going directly to women and children fleeing domestic violence, which is part of what the Housing Australia Future Fund does. We need to build more homes. We need to work across governments. We need to pull every single lever that we can pull. So this is a huge challenge. We need to build 1.2 million homes over the next five years, and we need to work across governments in order to ensure that more Australians have a safe and secure house to live in. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Burnell 300129 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:49 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Today we see that great Australian dream that every young Australian wants, the dream of owning their own home, slipping further and further away under the incompetence of this Labor government. And it is a sad, sad reality for young Australians today that that dream is getting more and more expensive for them to have the chance to realise. And what is the government doing? How many houses have they built? We had the Prime Minister in question time yesterday or the day before saying, across the table, 'I don't build homes, mate.' No, you might not build homes, but you should be facilitating the building of homes. The aim is 1.2 million homes, yet none have been built. It's all very well to have this fanciful dream of 1.2 million homes, but if your practical policies do not lead to those 1.2 million homes being built then, especially for young Australians, those who are struggling with rents at the moment, that reality of ever, ever being able to move into your own home just disappears further and further from you. That is why we want the government to look at what we successfully did when we were in government. We actually got homes being built in a number of ways. Those opposite can frown—look at the facts. We actually did—we had more homes built under us, especially in the last three to four years, than had been built decades before, because we had policies which actually meant that people were incentivised to build and build and build and build and build. Yet, what has happened since the Albanese Labor government got in? They changed those policy settings. They said: 'Oh, we've got to consult. We've got to dream up new policy approaches. We've got to bring the states on board.' And what's the reality? Not one single home has been built. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:51 to 11:06 Mr TEHAN 210911 As I was saying, in 2021 we had record levels of first home buyers, we had higher numbers of home builds, we had higher approvals and we had significantly lower rents. So the sad reality is that the government's approach is not working. All of those key indices are down and are getting worse. What is exacerbating this problem is not only their failed housing policy, which is not working; in 2023 we saw 547,000 people come to this country. So, under the government's policies, we haven't seen one home being built, yet we've seen record levels of people coming into this country. So the imbalance is completely and utterly wrong. I must say that, when I look locally in my electorate, we're starting to see those pressures play out. I'm seeing people write to me saying that rents are becoming unaffordable. I'm seeing local builders saying to me they cannot get the development approvals quickly enough to get the homes built. And we're seeing the timber providers of the homes in Australia—AKD in my electorate provides over 20 per cent of that timber—saying that the demand is not there for that timber at the moment. So everywhere there seems to be failure when it comes to getting our housing policy right. The Australian people need to know that housing will be a key plank of our policies at the next election, and we will be doing everything we can to make sure that young people can realise their dream of owning their first home and that rents start to come down so that they don't have to face these unsustainable increases that we're seeing under this government. People's ability to have a roof over their head is essential to their wellbeing, and none of these policies that have been outlined in this motion are working. We need to go back to the policies that were working, that were seeing record levels of first home buyers entering the market, not the lowest levels we've seen in years. That is what the approach that we will take will be— (Time expired) 11:09 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I have to say I'm absolutely shocked and surprised at the previous speaker's self-congratulatory tone. I spent much of the last decade working in the homelessness and housing sector, and I can tell you that, from the position of the people on the ground and in the sector, you were not doing a fantastic job. We could not find housing, particularly on the social and affordable housing end, and homelessness was going up. You wouldn't speak to us. It was an absolute disaster. We had Catherine House in Adelaide, which was a 52-bed property, and those beds were constantly full. We had a waiting list of 20 to 30 people at any time, and this was only for women who were unaccompanied—adult women who didn't have children with them. Those were the specific criteria we were talking about. All of the other services—the ones that dealt with women and children, the ones that dealt with men, the ones that dealt with families—had similar situations: queues out the door, phone calls from desperate people all the time, wanting to come in. We had to say to them: 'I'm sorry. We're full. We'll put you on the waitlist. You're rough sleeping, but we will put you on the waitlist and, when a bed comes up, then we can get you in.' We could only get a bed open for a new person to come in when we'd managed to move someone out, when we'd managed to find them a house or a home. Trying to access houses and homes—that was the bed blocker that was keeping people on the streets under those opposite in the last decade, which they seem to think was all absolutely fantastic. That was an absolute eye-opener for me, as somebody who's actually been in the sector and talked to the people experiencing homelessness, heard their stories and heard their desperation. Housing was always the rate-limiter. We would have somebody come in and we would spend an average of 43 days working with them, resolving the issues that had brought them into homelessness, resolving the issues that had arisen since they had been homeless—health issues, legal issues and, always, financial issues, because, if you've got money, you've got more options. There were all those sorts of things. Then we would have to find them a property. Not all houses are the same and not all houses suit everybody. If you want to reunite with your children, then you obviously need a multibed property. If you have a pet, a dog, then you'll need something with a backyard. Some people are happy to share homes. Others, particularly those exiting domestic violence, do not want to share; they want to be able to shut the door at night and know that they have complete control over who is in their environment. So we needed a whole range of properties, a whole range of housing, suitable for different people's situations. This government's focus has been on providing all of those different types of housing, across Australia—for key workers, for veterans, for women and children escaping domestic violence, social housing, affordable housing, different types of housing. This is very welcome. We have had a shortage of housing. It hasn't just arisen in the last two years, as those opposite seem to think. It has actually been—let's be honest—decades coming. There are a whole range of reasons why that has happened, including Airbnbs taking properties out of the market and into the hotel/motel market. We have a lower density of people living per house at the moment. Post COVID, a lot of people prefer not to share. They're working from home and they need an extra bedroom. So now about 140,000 extra properties need to be found, purely because of that lower density of people per house. So this government is working on a whole range of strategies. Our big block, of course, is trying to get these strategies through the Senate. We have a range of different strategies, because it is not going to be a one-size-fits-all in terms of getting these properties built. But every single piece of legislation that we have taken to the Senate has been delayed by those opposite and the Greens political party, both of whom say that housing is a priority for them—and yet they delay and delay. Next time they're out in their electorate, when they're actually talking to young people or families who can't find a house, I'd like them to explain how long they have delayed. We know it takes a while to build a house, but the faster you get building, the faster the house will be completed. 11:14 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Macnamara for his motion and for the opportunity to speak about the ongoing housing crisis in regional, rural and remote Australia. Across Australia, homes are more expensive and take longer to pay off than at any point in my lifetime. Consecutive interest rate rises and the cost of living are making it incredibly hard for those with a mortgage to make ends meet. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:14 to 11:25 Dr HAINES 282335 It's no better for renters. With vacancy rates below one per cent in north-east Victoria, those without a home have little chance of finding one. Even if people can find a home to rent, many can't afford them, with rents in the north-east increasing by more than 10 per cent in the past year and almost 30 per cent since 2021. That's not Melbourne. That's not Sydney. That's regional Victoria. What's happening in my electorate is happening right across Australia. People in three-bedroom homes are being pushed into units, people in units are being pushed into caravan parks, and people in caravan parks are being pushed into tents along the rivers. Homelessness is at a level I've not seen in my decades of living in north-east Victoria. It wasn't always like this. A home used to be affordable for the average worker. We provided decent and secure social housing for those doing it tough. It was a system where it didn't take a lifetime to pay off a mortgage and where your access to the bank of mum and dad didn't determine your chances of buying a home. Unfortunately, decades of policy dysfunction mean there are no quick-fix solutions. Despite the need for coordinated funding across all levels of government, I worry that this government is too focused on the major cities. The opposition, meanwhile, is more focused on raiding Australians' superannuation savings than putting forward credible alternative policies on regional housing. At its core, this is an issue of supply. I know this because I listen to housing experts, I talk to local governments and I see what's happening in the towns right across my electorate of Indi. I'm not in this place to play political games. I'm here to find solutions that benefit the people who elected me as their independent representative. What I hear time and time again is that we need to build more homes—not just any homes but more affordable homes, homes close to where people live, work and play. We need to build homes that are energy efficient and that work to lower household bills every day. And we desperately need more social and affordable housing, with thousands of people on social housing waitlists in my region of north-east Victoria. I know that regional Australia has the tools to build its way out of this housing crisis. Local governments and utility providers are ready to build new housing, but a lack of funding for critical enabling infrastructure is holding them back. Without more funding for improved sewerage, water connections and utilities connections, towns simply can't build the houses to meet the demand. That's why I welcomed the government's Housing Support Program, which will fund the critical enabling infrastructure I'm calling for, but I'm worried that regional Australia won't see its fair share of this funding, with $1 billion out of the $1.5 billion program going directly to state and territory governments. We have no visibility of how this money will be spent and no guarantee that local governments in electorates like mine will benefit. We also need more funding overall. My proposal for a regional housing infrastructure fund shows that the regions alone require up to $2 billion, but the government has only invested $1.5 billion right across the entire nation. A regional housing infrastructure fund would guarantee that regional communities get a fair share of government housing funding. My commonsense policy is backed by the serious players in regional housing. It was backed comprehensively at the National Regional Housing Summit back in February. We cannot forget about regional Australia when it comes to solving the housing crisis. Regional towns and cities are ready to build the housing of the 21st century, housing that is affordable, energy efficient, well located and ready to receive those workers who want to live and work in regional Australia. My policy is clear, and I'm prepared to work with anyone in this parliament to benefit the people of Indi and communities like them right across regional, rural and remote Australia. 11:29 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I thank my colleague the member for Macnamara for moving this motion that allows us to speak on the sheer breadth and depth of the Albanese Labor government's housing agenda. This is an important issue, one that plays on the minds of families doing it tough across the country. Australia has faced a housing shortage for far too long, and we have been putting measures to address this before this place almost from day one. We have funded these measures to match the size of their ambition. This motion recognises the urgent need for comprehensive housing reform and to see housing stock grow in pockets across the country. It's a motion that also acknowledges the Albanese Labor government's commitment to a $6.2 billion investment in the 2024-25 budget to accelerate housing construction. This significant investment is part of a broader $32 billion initiative aimed at boosting the supply of all types of housing, including public and social housing, affordable housing, and homes for rent and purchase. The new $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness is a cornerstone of this plan, supporting the delivery of 40,000 social and affordable homes under the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Housing Accord. Our government is providing up to $1.9 billion in concessional finance for community housing providers and other organisations operating in that space. Our government's goal to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade is both necessary and achievable. The Housing Australia Future Fund, with its $10 billion investment, is poised to make a significant impact. The National Housing Accord, which includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes, matched by states and territories, is another key aspect of our strategy. This collaboration with state and territory governments, combined with investments in infrastructure such as roads, sewerage and community facilities, will ensure the successful delivery of these homes. By working together across all levels of government, we can overcome the barriers to housing construction and ensure that new homes are built where they are needed most. Moreover, the government's initiatives extend beyond just building homes. These investments are crucial to ensuring that new housing developments are sustainable and provide a high quality of life for residents. Our housing strategy also recognises the importance of supporting the construction industry. The industry has faced significant challenges in recent years, including supply chain issues and labour shortages. To address these challenges, the government is working to improve the supply of skilled construction workers through access to fee-free TAFE and targeted skilled migration. By investing in the workforce, we can ensure that the construction industry has the capacity to build in line with both the targets we have set and the funding we have allocated towards doing so. The South Australian government, in partnership with the Albanese Labor government, has demonstrated strong leadership in addressing the housing crisis. Through the Better Housing Future plan, the South Australian government has committed to spending $2.6 billion over the next four years to accelerate the delivery of homes. This includes boosting the release of land for residential development, expediting the planning process and tackling infrastructure challenges that limit development. One of the key initiatives is the affordable housing initiative, which aims to deliver 1,000 new, affordable homes across Adelaide by 2026. This initiative ensures that homes are exclusively available for eligible low-to-middle-income households to purchase. By increasing the affordable housing price point for greater Adelaide and supporting pathways for homeownership, the South Australian government is making significant strides in addressing housing affordability. The Malinauskas Labor government is also investing $1.5 billion in water and sewer infrastructure to remove critical barriers to the construction— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:33 to 11:44 Mr BURNELL 300129 This includes an unprecedented $1.2 billion over the next four years to expand the water and sewer network to greenfield development sites in Adelaide's northern growth front, which is expected to unlock a potential 40,000 new allotments. The changes include streamlining the code amendment process and resulting land division, which will significantly reduce the timeframe to turn an empty block of land into a housing development. These moves are, in large part, thanks to the good work of my predecessor, the former member for Spence, Nick Champion, who is now the South Australian Minister for Housing and Urban Development and Minister for Planning. These efforts complement the Albanese Labor government's housing reform agenda, an agenda that is generationally significant. By investing in social and affordable housing, supporting renters and promoting homeownership, we are addressing the housing crisis head on. I thank the House. 11:45 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong A house is not just bricks and mortar. It's a stable, secure, safe place that supports our wellbeing and informs our self-worth. A home provides stability for individuals, couples and families to stay in one location, to pursue education and employment opportunities and to form attachments in their community. A good home is the foundation of a good life and, in the middle of a housing crisis, we can and should do much more to build more homes and to make renting a home more secure and affordable. Australia is in the middle of an unprecedented housing crisis. This problem has been decades in the making. It reflects a lack of effective planning, and policy failure by both major parties. As a result, young people are being shut out of the market by rapidly rising house prices, which have outstripped wages growth for more than a decade. The private rental market in Australia has a persistent, structural shortage of affordable housing. Growing numbers of vulnerable Australians, including people on low incomes and older, single women, are facing severe housing stress and even homelessness. The No. 1 problem is housing supply. Australia has amongst the lowest number of homes, as a proportion of population, in the developed world. The federal government has set a target of 1.2 million new homes by 2030, but, on its current trajectory, we are not going to reach that goal. The government has to take more accountability for ensuring that it meets the target for new homes. This could include doing more to convince investors to allocate capital to residential starts, amidst rising input costs and labour shortages; providing incentives and regulations to make sure that we can make better use of our existing housing stock; and providing Commonwealth incentives to states and councils to rezone land. The government's housing reform agenda and its commitment to provide more dwellings is commendable, but it's going to take too many years to achieve. With the rental crisis worsening, vulnerable Australians are under severe stress. In the short term, we have to do more to help people who are struggling to pay their rent. The recent increases in the Commonwealth rent assistance were welcome, but, with an average increase of $10 a week per household, they fall well short of the average rent increases, which have been well over $50 per week over the last year. In line with the recommendation from more than 60 expert groups and welfare groups, the Commonwealth's rent assistance has to be increased so that it more closely reflects the rents that people are actually paying, while the government works more quickly towards the long-term solution of building more affordable housing. In the middle of the cost-of-living and housing affordability crises, we have to do more. We have to do much more to help vulnerable people struggling to pay their rent—and they include women fleeing domestic violence, and older, single women, who are at much greater risk of housing insecurity than are men. A growing number of women are retiring into poverty and are then at risk of homelessness. Women are retiring with less superannuation than men, due to their history of a lifetime of part-time work, time out of the workforce to raise children and the gender pay gap. This means that many older women are experiencing severe housing insecurity due to an increasingly unaffordable private rental market. In retirement, the spending needs of single older women are modest. Increasing the Commonwealth rental assistance payment could be the difference for them between a good retirement and homelessness. A good home is the foundation for a good life. This unprecedented housing crisis means that we have to do more to help people who are struggling to pay their rent. We have to ensure that every Australian, including the young and the vulnerable, can have a good life. 11:50 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide The shortage of housing across our nation, which we know is contributing to housing unaffordability, soaring rents and homelessness, is a very real concern to members of this government. I'd like to congratulate the member for Macnamara for moving this motion about a matter of such grave national importance and for highlighting this issue. It is critical that we build more homes all across the nation. That's why the Albanese Labor government has an ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade through our Homes for Australia plan. The 2024-25 budget includes $6.2 billion in new investment to build more homes and support Australians, bringing our government's new housing initiatives to the fore in ensuring that we build those homes. As I said, this includes the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, with the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund now established and already generating returns. It's an ambitious target, because it just has to be. Of course, to build this many houses, we need to work with all levels of government to ensure the necessary workforce and materials supply chains are in place. That's why we're working to improve the supply of skilled construction workers through access to fee-free TAFE and targeted skilled migration. We have added an additional 320,000 fee-free TAFE places, and there is a further $80 million in this budget for priorities such as construction. This is obviously a matter of great concern in my home state of South Australia, and I know that the housing minister, Minister Collins, is working in partnership with the housing minister in South Australia, Nick Champion, who's the Minister for Housing and Urban Development. They're working in partnership to provide more South Australians with a place to call home. This Labor government's Social Housing Accelerator will contribute $135 million to housing projects in South Australia, with community housing providers to provide an additional $60 million. As part of this first tranche of projects, this partnership is set to deliver 369 new and improved social homes across community and public housing projects, providing homes for approximately 606 South Australians. On 23 May, I was delighted to attend a sod-turning and smoking ceremony for the Uniting on Second project with Minister Champion to mark the start of UnitingSA's latest affordable housing development in Bowden, in my electorate. The $30-plus million project will include 70 new affordable homes and 36 properties that will be available at affordable rents, while 34 will be affordable sales, providing a much needed boost to this market. This is in addition to a number of other affordable housing projects underway in my electorate of Adelaide, such as the Wirra Mikangka project, with 50 dwellings to be funded and at least 50 people to be housed. This project will enable a further 71 affordable and 30 market rental outcomes to be delivered across two apartment building towers. Housing Choices SA are in charge of that one—with partnerships. Uniting on Hawker is another project, with 24 dwellings to be funded and up to 36 people to be housed. A further 26 dwellings are to be delivered, including 14 affordable rentals, six market sales and six public houses. It will include townhouses specifically for older women. The project has been done by UnitingSA Brompton. Then we have 143 Devonport; that's again in my electorate. It will be a five-storey apartment building, with 21 dwellings to be funded that will house up to 29 people. This is being built in Prospect by Community Housing Ltd for domestic and family violence survivors and older women. Then we have another development at 164 Churchill Road, with 20 dwellings funded and up to 29 people housed. It's a five-storey apartment building being built in Prospect by Community Housing Ltd for domestic and family violence survivors and, again, specifically for older women. More Social Housing Accelerator projects are still under consideration and will be announced in due course. We said that we would move quickly to address the nation's housing issue, and we are. (Time expired) 11:55 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff This Labor government is all talk and no action. They're spouting and spinning about what a great two years it's been under Labor, but it hasn't been a great two years, and Australians know it. It's been a train wreck. We've seen 12 interest rate rises and watched on as Australia's housing crisis just got worse and worse. The latest inflation data shows that housing costs are up by 12 per cent. That means a family with a $750,000 mortgage, which is the average, is paying an extra $35,000 a year. That's a lot of money. Renters are also experiencing their highest increase since 2009. Gold Coasters have been hit hardest by this rental crisis. Only last week the Gold Coast was ranked as the worst affected by price hikes in Queensland. A fresh analysis shows weekly rent on the Gold Coast has increased by about $363 across houses and units combined, from June 2020 to June 2024. In my electorate of Moncrieff, it's been reported that rent is 47 per cent of the average income. Meanwhile, the median unit price is also out of reach, with households to fork out more than 30 per cent of their income. Housing has become unaffordable for the average Australian worker under this government's watch. Despite the government's spin about building more homes, the figures show us that new build approvals are on the decline across the country. The ABS data reveals that the total number of building approvals for residential dwellings fell by 0.3 per cent to 13,078. So I ask the government: where are all these promised new houses coming from? State and federal Labor governments continue to sit idly by whilst young families are being forced out onto the street. Young families are pitching tents in the park. This is happening in my electorate on the Gold Coast. Single mothers and their children are being forced to live in caravan parks. Young people are sleeping rough in cars or couch surfing. Whilst there are many incredible crisis accommodation programs, they can only do so much to support the increase in homelessness. Youth foyers are one of the many support services available for young people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. I've visited a number of youth foyers in my capacity as shadow minister for youth. I've seen firsthand how they are changing the lives of young people who have nowhere else to go. But, like many other housing support services, they cannot help every person who reaches out. Australians want real action on housing. My own community, after 10 long years under Palaszczuk government neglect, has resorted to doing our own fundraising for Gold Coasters doing it tough through the Vinnies CEO Sleepout. We raised over $600,000 in June to establish a 60-unit apartment building in Nerang. I thank those members in Moncrieff, in my federal division or council, for helping me fundraise $8,500 towards that. I ask those opposite: Do you have an actual plan that will deliver more housing for families? Is your plan to target negative gearing and punish homeowners with an outcome of depleting the rental pool even further? Any move to abolish negative gearing would be a blow to Aussie battlers and would have an adverse impact on household savings and housing affordability. Its abolition would lead to serious negative flow-on effects in housing affordability for renters and for homeowners. To even consider this as an option, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis caused by this government and a housing crisis caused by this government, is absolute madness. In contrast, there is only one party that actually delivers real housing solutions. I stand by our record. There were record levels of homebuyers under the coalition. There were higher numbers of home builds under the coalition. There were higher numbers of approvals under the coalition, and there were significantly lower rents. Think back two years. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:59 to 12:06 Ms BELL 282981 During our last three years in government, the coalition's housing policy supported more than 300,000 Australians to buy a home. We saw the highest level of first home buyers in 15 years. We also supported the establishment of more than 21,000 social and affordable homes through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. Should we be successful at the next election, the coalition has committed to implementing a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing new homes in Australia. We'll also reduce the permanent Migration Program by 25 per cent, and this will help free up housing for our own Australians before we increase migration. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Energy 5098 12:07 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I move: That this House notes that: (1) every Australian deserves and should expect access to cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; (2) the Government has broken its promise to reduce household energy bills by $275, with households instead paying some of the world's most expensive energy bills; (3) in the past two years power bills have increased by up to $1,000 more than the Government promised; (4) the Australian Energy Market Operator has issued dire warnings about the state of Australia's gas market due to a lack of supply; (5) 90 per cent of Australia's baseload energy will exit the grid by 2034 under this Government; (6) baseload power stations should not be closed prematurely with no replacement ready to go; (7) the Government is steamrolling regional communities in a desperate attempt to fulfill its all-eggs-in-one-basket 'renewables only' approach to meet its unachievable 82 per cent renewables target; and (8) the Opposition believes in a balanced energy mix including renewables, gas and as coal exits the grid, it should be replaced with zero-emissions nuclear energy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is there a seconder? Mr Wallace 265967 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 The Albanese Labor government promised Australians a $275 reduction on their household power bills, and yet this year we will see Australian families paying far more—in some cases, up to $1,000 more—than what Labor had promised. Under Labor's 'all eggs in one basket' approach to Australia's electricity system, prices will soar and the lights will go out. Australians will be poorer, and as a nation we will be weaker. Under Labor's plan, Australia will see 90 per cent of its 24/7 base-load power stations close. Australia is turning off one system before having another ready to go. The closure of 90 per cent of our 24/7 base-load power will happen over the next 10 years, amidst a period where Labor is also suffocating the supply of gas. As for its renewables rollout, well, it has stalled. Labor came to office with grand plans of 82 per cent renewables on the grid and up to 98 per cent by 2050, predominantly wind and solar. But there is not a market analyst and there is not an energy expert in the country who says Labor is on track to achieve these targets. In order for it to achieve its 2030 target it needs to install seven gigawatts of renewables on the grid every single year. The financial close of deals last year under Labor was only 1.3 gigawatts. So they are forcing the premature closure of base-load power stations, they are suffocating the supply of gas and they've stalled their renewables rollout, which is why we see prices soar and the market operator saying that right now, this winter, we could run out of gas, and come summer we're looking at, potentially, blackouts. That was the market operator's warning. This again comes back to an ideological approach of this Albanese Labor government, taking us down a pathway that no other nation on the planet dares to even contemplate. There is not one country in the world which is seeking to transform its electricity grid into a wind and solar grid, almost entirely weather dependent. Australia is isolated, and it's the Australian people and the Australian businesses who are paying the price. Still to this day, despite being in office for two years, the Labor government cannot tell the Australian people the total system cost of its plan. But the Australian people know, because they are opening up their power bills and they know that they are paying the highest electricity prices they ever have. Australians today are paying among the highest prices for electricity in the world, and, of course, there are threats that the lights will go out. The coalition's approach is very different from Labor's. The coalition believes in a balanced energy mix. The coalition has a plan to deliver cheap, clean and consistent 24/7 electricity. Today, there is a degree of balance still in the system, despite Labor's efforts. Our grid today is made up of renewables, gas and coal. By the time we reach a net zero electricity grid in 2050, under the coalition we will have a balanced energy mix in that grid. We will have renewables, we will have gas and we will have zero-emissions nuclear energy. We don't believe in the premature closure of base-load power stations. But, as coal retires from the system, it needs to be replaced with a clean energy source that can provide that 24/7 base-load power. If we look around the world, our peers are all moving towards the embrace of zero-emissions nuclear energy, and so too should we. 12:12 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I feel like the member for Fairfax is living in a parallel universe. His eight-point motion reads like an assignment handed in late by an eight-year-old who could do better. The premises he uses—being references to cost, cleanliness, consistency, supply and a variety of sources—do not actually support his conclusion. The motion is a distraction in search of a justification, and the only credit I can give the member for Fairfax is that he is at least consistent. He's been barracking for nuclear in this place since at least 2017. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:13 to 12:19 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 There is, however, more than a little dissonance in his position in that he appears to admit the need to reduce emissions, then complains that renewables are too expensive compared to fossil fuels and then clings to nuclear when all the experts say it is costlier than firmed renewables. The member for Fairfax says nuclear power needs to be part of the mix. Liberal spokespeople have been saying that in opposition for the last 30 years—not so much in government though. In government they did nothing, betraying their real motives in this space. In any event, the evidence and the experts don't agree. The CSIRO and AEMO have found that the cost of nuclear would be at least four times the cost of firmed renewables. The coalition policy would see Australians paying much higher energy prices. Even the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, has counselled the opposition to ditch their nuclear plans and prioritise, as our government has, Australia's untapped potential in solar and wind. The Economist magazine recently predicted that solar will in fact be the biggest source of electricity on the planet by the mid-2030s. So there really is no basis for the claims of the member for Fairfax. Sometime in the future, he and the member for Dickson will either have to untether themselves from the nuclear disaster of a policy that they cling to or go down with it. I now want to turn to this basket of eggs that the member for Fairfax refers to in his motion. It's alright to use an analogy, of course, but only if the analogy actually stacks up—and it doesn't stack up. The eggs of the member from Fairfax are speckled eggs indeed! Renewables aren't all eggs in a basket. They are all different things and in different baskets. Wind power is not solar. Solar is not hydro. Hydro isn't geothermal. Geothermal isn't wave power. And then we have storage methods. We can call them batteries, but there are different kinds. Lithium isn't sodium, isn't vanadium, isn't gravity. There are different ways of using gravity. And we know we will need gas for some time yet in the transition in order to firm up renewables. Over time, we'll be able to replace much of that gas with hydrogen. Hydrogen can and will be produced with renewables. In Western Australia, the forecast is that by 2042 gas will be just four per cent as a consequence of the investments that we're making today to create a renewable future for our state. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:22 to 12:33 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 5099 ADJOURNMENT Climate Change 5099 12:34 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Climate risk is escalating and costing our communities, and 1.5 degrees is not a goal or a target. It is an important threshold. Scientists around the globe have identified it as the point beyond which climate risk will accelerate, impacting every aspect of our economy, environment and communities. The government is not doing all it can to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and mitigate that risk. It continues to approve extension of coal and gas projects well beyond 2050. We need diligent measuring and monitoring of all emissions, in particular methane emanating from extraction and gas that is transported, including from open coalmines. Methane traps more heat in the atmosphere per molecule than CO2, making it 80 times more harmful than CO2 for 20 years after it's released. Opposition members interjecting— Ms STEGGALL 175696 Australia has signed the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. The interjections from members of the coalition are not surprising, because we know they do not want to act on climate change. They want to continue seeing their communities exposed to escalating risk without mitigating it. Who will pay the cost? Communities will pay the cost. In relation to methane, Australia has signed the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. However, our laws do not require facilities to actually measure, monitor and capture, where possible, methane emissions. In 2019, on our current flawed measuring, methane made up 68 per cent of Australia's emissions from the energy industry overall. We are not yet on track to achieving net zero by 2050. There is compelling evidence of gross underreporting of fugitive methane emissions from Australian mines and gas facilities, based on analysis by the International Energy Agency's satellite data published in its Global Methane Tracker. The International Energy Agency highlights that methane emissions from oil and gas are some of the easiest to abate if appropriate monitoring and measuring is implemented. We should have global best practice on measuring, monitoring and reporting methane, especially as we are the 11th highest methane emitter globally and 10 per cent of our national emissions are fugitive. There's a growing body of evidence highlighting the gross underreporting of methane emissions, particularly from other fugitive emissions from open-cut mines and from oil and gas extraction. The ACF'sAnnual Australian methane plume summary: 2023 shockingly reported that Glencore's Hail Creek mine is suspected as having had at least one super-emitting event over a 16-day period, where there were some 60-times-higher methane emissions than what was in fact reported or offset. The Global Methane Tracker 2024 suggests Australia is underreporting it's methane emissions by up to 64 per cent. This underreporting is significant, not only due to the magnitude of potential error but also due to the high contribution methane makes to Australia's overall emissions profile and the liabilities associated with these emissions under the safeguard mechanism. This evidence has been put to the government, and the government is on notice that Australia has an emissions reporting problem and is undermining not only the safeguard mechanism but our international commitment under the Paris Agreement and the Global Methane Pledge. The review of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme by the Climate Change Authority recommended mandatory measurement, reporting and independent verification of methane emissions. Investment in emissions monitoring infrastructure is necessary for the full implementation of these recommendations, but unfortunately there was nothing in the last budget from the government to address that. Further, the government has now missed its statutory deadline to respond to the review's recommendations to fix methane reporting. It's now two weeks overdue. At a time when the Minister for the Environment and Water continues to approve further gas projects well into the future, that is negligent. The Australian government must urgently address methane emissions both in the agricultural sector and in the coal and gas sector. May I remind the House and people out there that the first impact of a biowarming climate will be on those relying on the environment for their living—for example, in the agriculture sector. The warnings that that sector will not survive are dire. The crops will not survive the kind of predicted temperature changes and climate changes that are coming. I urge the government and the coalition: come to your senses and start acting on this threat. Cost of Living 5100 12:39 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce The last session of parliament has put beyond doubt—if there was any doubt—just how bad, and how unfit for government, is that supposed alternative government over there: that ragtag rabble, that chaotic show, that shambles of a—what is it now? The Littleproud-Dutton government, it would become. They've got the National Party tail wagging the Liberal Party dog. Now, I didn't think I'd say this. I've been a big critic of the opposition for the last couple of years, because they've had no policies; the alternative government of the country, His Majesty's loyal opposition over there, have had no policies to govern the country, but I think that was actually better than the three policies they have now. Their No. 1 policy is to push up house prices by letting young people raid their superannuation accounts—trashing their retirement savings—and bidding up the cost of housing. Genius! You don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive, and, as the modelling shows, if that ridiculous policy was ever to actually be implemented, the median house price in Australia would rise by around $75,000—funnily enough, advantaging all the people who already own houses. Their second genius policy is their new one to push up power prices, with their fantasy, risky nuclear reactors—too expensive and too slow: the most expensive form of new energy that there is, delivered in 20 years! Meanwhile, they'd spend God knows how much more taxpayer money extending the life of inefficient, broken, coal-fired power stations. Under their dismal decade of decay and division and dithering when they were in office, 24 out of 28 of Australia's coal-fired power stations announced they were going to close, and they literally did nothing. They've had 22 energy policies in nine years. But now we've got the third of their triumvirate of wacky policies: to push up grocery prices. The National Party tail, yet again, has wagged the Liberal Party dog, and they've now got their latest policy—their one big idea for cost of living: the grocery big stick. Their angry, negative opposition leader is now running around being angry about grocery prices. Well, so is the government. The difference is that we're actually doing something and have been doing something. They've come up with a truly ridiculous plan. Their big stick would break up the supermarkets. Their answer to grocery prices is to break up the supermarkets—to increase the risk and the cost of capital, to push up prices and to break up the supermarkets. Coles will buy Woollies and Woollies will buy Coles. Does anyone actually think, if they came to government, that they'd break up the supermarkets and that that would be the answer to pushing down grocery prices? It's completely ridiculous. Even that left-wing socialist the former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett said it is madness, which is why every sensible economist has rejected it as any kind of answer to grocery prices. I'm sure it's populist. I'm sure it plays well in certain parts of the community. But it's economic populism and economic nonsense. Many of the Labor government's regional members—like the member for Bendigo—represent communities and small towns with one supermarket. How is this actually going to help them? The government's response makes sense. We're focused on mandating compliance with the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct and cracking down on anti-competitive behaviour, with huge fines and price monitoring—we've funded Choice to do the quarterly price monitoring—and through the ACCC inquiry that is ongoing. The economists are clear: huge fines and compliance with the code will drive competitive behaviour, not this nonsense of a big stick. They love the big stick. When the shadow Treasurer was the energy minister in that golden era of 22 policies—a couple of which were his—he had his big stick. The parliament was replete with phallic jokes for about a year about Angus's little twig and his tiny toothpick and all that, but it's not actually funny. This is the alternative government, with their three policies: push up house prices, push up power prices and, now, push up grocery prices. They have absolutely nothing to say on the cost of living. It's rushed; it's chaotic. There's only one reason—and we're clear on this; when you talk to the community and you see the polling, it's as clear as day, and it's only just begun. They rocked out the big stick on grocery prices as some kind of a desperate distraction from the nuclear shambles, because the community is already onto it. Why would you want the most expensive form of new energy, in 20 years time, as any kind of answer to the power crisis now, which we inherited from them? The election will be a choice on energy, as they wanted, between Labor's positive, costed plan for the energy transition and the coalition's costly, risky nuclear fantasy with more questions than answers. Economy 5101 12:44 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright The previous speaker mentioned a long line of sensible economists making comments. Well, it's just fortuitous that I have a number of pages here from sensible economists— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:45 to 12:50 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 The previous speaker spoke about sensible economists. I'm very fortunate in being able to follow the previous speaker, because I have three pages of comments from very diligent, gifted economists, and they are not flattering to the government's management, particularly around inflation. Recently I was in this chamber and I spoke about the real effects of inflation on families. My mother is celebrating her 83rd birthday this year, and she has friends this winter who are struggling with the cost-of-living pressures and will choose to put another layer of clothing on rather than turn a heater on. The energy costs of trying to keep the house warm are now becoming so prohibitive for a sector of our community that they're choosing not to use the heating. The government and the opposition should reflect upon that. We're a nation that should be better than that. Inflation is not our friend, and the guys on the other side of this chamber have fuelled inflation. The economists of our country know it. Michele Bullock, the Reserve Bank governor, was quoted recently in the Australian Financial Review as saying: An important implication of this homegrown and demand-driven— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:52 to 13:03 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 There is commonality in the comments from the economic commentators. They are all joined unanimously in their condemnation of the government's handling of the economy, particularly the inflationary pressures that it's having. Even the Reserve Bank governor herself has had a chop in the Australian Financial Review, saying: 'An important implication of this homegrown and demand-driven component to inflation is getting it back to target. It's going to take time.' On another point, she said: 'Hairdressers and dentists, dining out in restaurants, sports and other creative activities—the prices of all these services are rising strongly.' Because I mentioned my mum at the beginning of this speech, she will undoubtedly want to share this speech with some of her friends who may not completely understand how inflation works. So I thought I'd just quickly share that it's quite a basic, simple, formulaic equation. It's I+C+G(E-I). I stands for our investment. That's the money we have in our bank. The C is our consumption. It's the money that we spend as consumers. It's the point that the Reserve Bank governor just spoke to then: when we dine out, when we fuel our car et cetera. The G is all of the government's spending. The open-bracket formula, E minus 1, is exports minus imports, which is our terms of trade. It's the government part of this equation which is putting upward pressure on inflation, and these commentators are calling it out. Alan Kohler, an Australian financial journalist, said: It's the big-picture numbers that confirm this government to be an amazingly and unexpectedly big-spending one. Amazing and unexpected because … Jim Chalmers has repeatedly said this would be a responsible government with a responsible budget, providing relief, repair and reform. But another "R" word is more appropriate: Risky. These independent commentators are backing up time and time again. Chris Richardson, on Twitter, said: My big ask of the Budget was that it didn't poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it passed that test. Ross Greenwood from Sky News said this is the biggest-taxing government in 23 years. So, when members come into this parliament and start talking about common sense from independent economists, this is what those very economists are saying about the government. Phil Coorey from the Financial Review had the headline 'Spending addiction fuels a new decade of future deficits'. My mum's friends deserve more. They don't deserve to sit in the cold, and they don't deserve this government. Northern Territory 5102 13:06 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Territorians are free, incredible, resilient people, but I understand—we understand—that many are under pressure right now, and that's why Labor is helping all Territorians with the cost of living. From 1 July we are delivering a tax cut for every Territory taxpayer—not just some but all—and a $300 energy bill relief for every Territory household and $325 for small businesses. We've frozen the cost of PBS medicines for every Territorian, and that has already, just in my electorate, saved Territorians more than $1 million. There's a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers nationally and more funding to build more homes in every part of the Territory and every part of the country. But that's not all. Labor has already delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing. This is all part of a longer term economic plan helping Territorians right now, working to bring down inflation, which we have since we inherited over at six per cent from those opposite. We know that there's more to do and we will keep working every day to deliver for every Territorian, just as we have been every day in this term of government. Just consider this: the $4 billion over 10 years funded by the Australian and Northern Territory governments to improve housing in remote Territory communities and homelands. Of the $3.8 billion Commonwealth investment in northern defence bases, $2 billion of that is in the Territory, with much more to come. There's $1.5 billion in planned equity from the Commonwealth for common use of marine infrastructure at the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct, and a joint $1 billion package to fully fund our public education in the Northern Territory under both federal and Territory Labor governments. The Albanese Labor government has $840 million in loans and grants packages to Arafura's Nolans rare earths project to build a critical minerals mine and refinery in my friend the member for Lingiari's electorate. There's $480 million in Commonwealth funding for Territory roads, on top of the Northern Territory government's $2.3 billion investment in transport infrastructure, as well as the doubling of the Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to $1 billion, under which Northern Territory councils will receive $128 million over five years—which is an increase of $55 million. This demonstrates what our experience has always taught us, and what it has always taught us is that the Territory always does better with Labor. That is not only because of the size of those figures—the billions of dollars of investment. It's because Labor has a clear and achievable vision for the Northern Territory. We plan to build a $40 billion economy by 2030 in which the cost of living is driven down. We want to grow the population, in a sustainable way, and to improve the quality of life of all Territorians, from the cities to the homelands. We want young Territorians to have attractive opportunities to study, live and work in the Territory. That future can be best secured under Labor governments, here in Canberra but also in Darwin, working hand in hand. So, as we enter the winter break, I invite all members and senators to come up to the Top End and thaw out. We've got jam-packed festivals and activities on, during the dry. The biggest ever Pitch Black commences on 12 July, and on 20 July there's an open day to which you can come for free and— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13:1 1 to 13:17 Mr GOSLING 245392 I want to invite all members and senators up to the Top End for the dry season. Come up and thaw out. We've got fantastic festivals on as well as the perfect weather every day and the best beer gardens in the country. We've got the amazing Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair on from 9 to 11 August at the Darwin Convention Centre. On 10 August we've got the National Indigenous Music Awards as well as Australia's hottest winter arts festival, the Darwin Festival, which is happening from 8 to 25 August. We've also got the 2024 Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards, the NATSIAAs, with all finalists currently exhibited at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory through until January next year. Come up to the Top End, and you'll have a ball. Agriculture Industry 5103 13:18 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Labor is making it harder to get food from the paddock to the plate for farmers across the country, especially in my electorate of Flynn in Central Queensland. Since Labor took office two years ago, this is what we've seen: they've made changes to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme—PALM—which have made it harder for farmers to source a workforce; they proposed and then ditched a fresh-food tax which would force for farmers to pay the biosecurity costs of their international competitors; and they've cut and run with funding for nation-building water infrastructure. Most recently, they've passed legislation to ban live sheep exports, with the cattle industry next on their list. Last weekend, Labor axed a crucial backpacker and worker program for farms. Labor's scrapping of the Harvest Trail program from 30 June will mean farmers in Flynn will find it harder to get the workers they need. This essential program helped connect farmers with thousands of backpackers and job seekers during the harvest period. It also helped both employees and employers get a background check, enabling confidence in both the job and the industry. However, Labor is once again showing its contempt for the farming industry in Flynn, by removing Harvest Trail Services and the Harvest Trail Information Service to save $47.3 million and $11.1 million per year ongoing. This money won't even be directed back into agriculture. The pain will be felt at the check-out because, when supply goes down, prices go up. The fewer workers farmers can find, the less they can plant or harvest, which will mean people will ultimately pay more for their food. Wide Bay pineapple farmer Col Hawken said Labor was again hurting the farming industry: I think it's disgusting that we are losing the program. If we have a system like the harvest trail, we can get background checks, ensuring we get the workers we actually need. It also stops backpackers from getting ripped off too. This was a really useful program that Labor is abolishing with very little notice. Labor doesn't understand that farmers plan two and three years out. There is no alternative scheme to replace it. There is just nothing. Labor has zero regard for primary producers and is determined to make life harder. Agricultural industries all over Australia will be spared from paying Labor's fresh food tax or planned biosecurity protection levy from this month. I'm proud that the Nationals, the farmers and the industry successfully helped scrap this tax, which was due to be implemented from 1 July 2024, after months of campaigning. Labor's fresh food tax would have hurt families at the checkout as well as 84 agricultural commodities which face taxes to raise $150 million over three years. The biosecurity protection levy will not get the support it needs in the Senate, ensuring Labor's senseless and terrible tax idea doesn't come to fruition. The Nationals will always fight for common sense and fight for our regional, rural and remote farming communities. Labor's terrible tax plan was just another attack on the agricultural industry. I am concerned Labor created the Sustainable Biosecurity Funding Advisory Panel earlier this year to look at the way farmers could pay more for biosecurity. A recent meeting of the panel indicated there was no support for an alternative producer funded contribution. Labor must now come clean and declare they will scrap the levy and prevent the tax from reaching the Senate and Australian farmers. Labor must also declare that it will leave the current industry-imposed primary industry levy system, which invests in research and development, marketing and biosecurity, alone. The primary industry levy system is critical to the competitiveness, productivity and sustainability of agriculture, and farmers need to know this system will not be used by the Labor government to implement another tax. Victorian farmer Ben Duxton, who has 8½ thousand merino sheep as well as canola, barley and wheat on his 5,000-acre farm in the Wimmera, said he was relieved that Labor's tax has been scrapped but remains sceptical about farmers getting a reprieve. He said: 'Labor hates farming and they seem to want to keep making our lives harder. The sooner Labor goes, the better it will be for Australian agriculture, starting with lowering taxes for farmers, which in turn ensures we can keep providing fresh and affordable produce for Australian farmers.' And I couldn't agree more. Let's see what's next on Labor's list and how they will be attacking agriculture. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events 5104 13:23 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I rise today to acknowledge the King's Birthday awards and some absolutely spectacular people across the mighty Eden-Monaro. In our community, members have been recognised for their exceptional community service. In the Order of Australia general civil division, Dr Pauline Kerr AM, Brigadier Natasha Ludwick AM, Ms Suzanne Bolger OAM, Mrs Judith Caldwell OAM and Ms Catherine Ringstad OAM were all awarded. Meritorious awards went to Assistant Commissioner Douglas Boudry APM and Ms Leonie Holloway PSM. Military awards, including Order of Australia in the military division, went to Captain Sean Andrews CSC RAN, Captain Glen Miles CSC RAN, Brigadier Nicholas Wilson CSC, and Squadron Leader Rebecca Trembath CSM. We appreciate the work you do in our community in service of the broader Australian community. Thank you and congratulations. I'm proud to say that 27 young local athletes have been successful in round 4 of the Local Sporting Championships grants. These grants will help Eden-Monaro's up-and-coming sporting legends to attend their respective championships. It includes 24 athletes going to national competitions and three athletes going to international competitions. Maddison Vallender is going to the Future Championship Nations Cup in Hagan, Germany for equestrian. Georgia Henness is attending the UCI World Cup for mountain biking, and Will Crawford is going to the UK in July for shooting. It's wonderful to have our regional up-and-coming sports stars be supported to compete at such a high level. Living in the regions shouldn't mean that you have to miss out on these kinds of opportunities, and it's wonderful to have these grants available to help our young people out. I wish them all the best in their future competitions and their sporting careers. I look forward to seeing them in the Olympics soon, and I want to say a big thank you to their mums and dads for all you do to support them. In May, we saw the centenary celebration of the Bega Soldiers Memorial Gates. It was a time to reflect on the sacrifices that our defence personnel have made as members of our communities and the lasting impact of their duty for not only our veterans but for their family and friends as well. The memorial is an important monument for the Bega community, many of whom have had personal connections to the names that are listed on it. As part of the celebration and the commemoration, conservation efforts were undertaken for the arch. A new mural was commissioned to honour service men and women near the memorial by artist Terri Tuckwell. We acknowledge and remember all ADF personnel for the sacrifices they have made in defending our country, and I encourage people to stop by and see for themselves when they visit the Bega Valley how tremendous the war memorial gates are looking now. I'm really passionate about getting young people active and engaged in our democracy, and it's something that I'll always continue supporting. So, when young people like Sophie-Ella show initiative, I'm keen to help out wherever I can. I first met Sophie when she was in year 6 at Eden Public School. She contacted me about the state of the amenities at her school. Some years down the track now, Sophie-Ella is in year 10 at Lumen Christi College. She came to the Bega electorate office and to Parliament House to do some work experience, including going to question time, which I'm sure was quite an eye-opener for her. I wish Sophie-Ella all the best in her studies and encourage her to continue her interest in Australia's democracy. The State and Territory Landcare Awards happened recently across the country, and a few Eden-Monaro locals cleaned up. Janet Heffernan, who has spent two decades as a volunteer with the Gunning District Landcare group but lives in Yass, was honoured with a 'highly commended' in the Women in Landcare Award. The Yass Area Network of Landcare Groups was a finalist for the work it does in the climate-ready revegetation project, which involves raising genetically diverse native plant species which are then sold to local landholders in the area. I also want to congratulate Mandi Stevenson on being honoured with a life membership. From starting out at her local landcare group in Bombala to being on the national landcare board, Mandi has been recognised for her leadership and over three decades of contributions. I congratulate all those who have been recognised in the awards and commend their work in helping regional areas from the ground up. Finally, I want to say vale to Claire Lupton. Claire was honoured with life membership of the Labor Party back in 2022. She is a true believer, a staunch advocate and someone who's probably spent a small fortune on raffle tickets over her years. She has been a coordinator and a key contact in the Bega area. She has always stood up for Labor values, and I know friends and family right across the Bega Valley will deeply miss her connection. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:28