2024-08-13 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 13 August 2024

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 1

Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024

Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, the Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Joint Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. 12:01 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond by leave—I move: That Ms Miller-Frost be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 1

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 12:02 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 has the following aspects: it establishes the legislative framework for a new temporary skilled worker visa, the skills in demand visa; it also creates the income thresholds and indexation for the proposed streams of that visa; and it streamlines labour market testing requirements and provides for a register of approved work sponsors. The provisions of the bill have been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 September 2024. So far, the inquiry has received 20 submissions, and we are currently going through all those submissions because, obviously, getting this process right is incredibly important. This piece of legislation redefines how we will bring people into this country and, in particular, how we will bring the necessary skills that we need into this country. The problem so far is that everything that the Albanese Labor government has done in the last two years when it comes to immigration has been a complete and unholy mess. We want to make sure that this doesn't become a complete and unholy mess like everything else they've touched. While we generally support the thrust of the bill, we are, obviously, looking also at putting forward what we think are very necessary amendments. That will take place in the Senate because the bill will be presented to us before the Senate inquiry has taken place and before it has finalised its report and provided its recommendations. We want to wait and see what that Senate inquiry process throws up and then look at what amendments we will put in place to make sure that the huge mess the government has made in immigration doesn't continue to get bigger and bigger. In fact, today we saw that the former Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs made such a mess of the release of the detainees after the NZYQ case that at least 83 detainees were roaming freely in the community, some of them hardened criminals, including murderers, sex offenders and child sex offenders, with no visas and no visa conditions, even though he had quite clearly said to the House that all the detainees were released with visa conditions. We want to make sure that this isn't just another mess. We've obviously seen the mess with numbers. The NOM has continued to blow out every time the government puts a target in place. Amid a housing and rental crisis, we're seeing huge numbers of people coming into this country, numbers we've never seen, record after record, and yet, when it comes to the skills we need to build houses—the carpenters, the plumbers and the tilers—it seems as though the CFMEU have had their way. Those skilled workers aren't coming in to complement the trades and tradespeople we already have here in Australia to make sure that we can build those houses, put downward pressure on rent, and not take the dream away from young people to own their homes. It will be very interesting to see what the new Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Home Affairs can do to fix up the unholy mess that has been made in immigration. His track record from the last time he was in the portfolio does not bode well, but we wish him well. It's incredibly important that someone with some sense of competence come along and try and fix up what is happening in that area. What concerns are already being raised with us? There are concerns about the process of determining if an occupation is on the relevant skilled occupation list. So far, it seems they are being plucked out of thin air. We have to make sure that there is a proper process for how an occupation is on the relevant skilled occupation list. For example, when we have a huge demand for the building of houses, you would hope that all the relevant occupations in that area would be on the occupation list, but, so far, we do not see any sort of methodical process into how the skilled occupation list is put in play. This list is meant to specify occupations for the eligibility for a range of skilled visas, both permanent and temporary. It is aimed at identifying occupations where there are skills gaps in the Australian labour market—that is, it's essential to making sure that you have a well-run immigration system and that you identify where the skills shortages are and then seek to fill those skills shortages. We haven't seen anything that even resembles a process for putting that skilled occupation list together. That is one area that we'll be looking at very closely. The second thing we want to look at is how quickly the skilled occupation list will be able to be changed to respond to changes in certain occupations. How will one list address geographic skills gaps? There might be skills gaps in one part of the country but not in another country. And how quickly will the list be able to be adjusted to seasonal requirements? These are really important points. For instance, if you bring record numbers of people, the likes of which we've never seen, into this country in two years, like the Albanese Labor government has done, and you're doing that in a housing crisis, can you change your skilled occupation list to make sure that we can complement those tradies here in Australia, who already do a fantastic job but are fully stretched, to be able to help and support them to build the houses that we need? When we've got a skills gap, for instance, in the shearing industry, what can we do in certain areas of the country where shearing is very important to make sure that we've got the skills shortages addressed in that area which might not be relevant in other parts of Australia? These are the types of things we will want to look at very, very carefully. How well will the skilled occupation list cater for the different employment needs across regional areas? This is simply unknown. One of the problems that we seem to be always having with the Albanese Labor government is that they seem to think that the regions don't exist. It's all about the capital cities, but, as they should be aware, and as we've told them plenty of times, different regions have different needs, and that's something else that we want to make sure that we're looking at. These are real concerns, and employers are raising these concerns with us. It is unknown how well Jobs and Skills Australia will function and respond to the needs of the employment market. All that needs to be fleshed out. It is also unknown what influence the unions will have on shaping the jobs that are listed on the skilled occupation lists. We all know about the CFMEU; it's flavour of the month. I know it's been of great surprise to the Labor Party, but they're the only ones in Australia who it's been of great surprise to, that the tactics of the CFMEU have once again been brought to light, and all those opposite seem to be completely shocked by this, whereas everyone else has known what's been going on for many years. How has their influence impacted the government in restricting the number of builders, plumbers, electricians, tilers et cetera who are able to get onto the skills list? What is being done to make sure that we're complementing those who are trying to build our houses at the moment? That's just one example. The other thing that the government has done is increase the temporary skilled migration income threshold from $53,900 to $70,000 from 1 July 2023, and it is now indexing it. When the government announced the increase in the TSMIT to $70,000, there were concerns raised by employers, particularly in regional Australia, that foreign workers would then be paid more than their Australian workers, which obviously can be very unsatisfactory in a workplace. So what is happening in that area? We'll be very interested to hear from employer groups on that as part of the Senate inquiry process. The level of the TSMIT is now higher than many awards, so we have a situation where the foreign worker would get paid more than an Australian worker receiving award wages. This situation may get worse as indexation takes place. Exploring what impact that's having in the workplace and what Australian workers are thinking of this will also be something that we'll be seeking to flesh out as part of the Senate inquiry. With real wages being thumped here in Australia by the Albanese Labor government—I'll say that again: real wages are being thumped by the Albanese Labor government—I just wonder how poor, hardworking Australians will deal with the fact that those coming in from overseas will be getting higher wages than they will be getting and what that means for workplaces. So that will be something that we will want to explore as well. In summary, the opposition will allow this bill through the House. We will wait for the Senate inquiry to report. We will look at its recommendations and, in particular, some of those key areas that I have outlined. Then it's highly likely we'll be seeking to put amendments forward to this bill to ensure that its passage leads to the right outcomes—that is, making sure that we build a better Australia, not a big Australia, which is the Albanese Labor government approach. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour. Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 3

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024

Second Reading 3 12:15 Mr JOYCE e5d New England If 1,273 people died in a war between 2001 and 2019, it would be a tragedy that would be recollected and part of the fabric of this chamber from that time forward. If we had a terrorist attack and 1,273 people were killed, we would note it as a memorial around this building, like we have with others. Just for the record, between 2001 and 2019 the official number of suicides was 1,273 for serving and ex-serving members. This is a catastrophe for every family and for every family member that is a part of this. We are trying to work out why the rate amongst men is four times higher, we believe, than it is on civvy street. Amongst women who have served for a short time, it's vastly higher. It's for this reason that people were driven towards a royal commission to try and get to the bottom of this. It was for this reason that people such as Julie-Ann Finney did so much work in coming to this building. She recollected her beautiful son, who committed suicide, and was amongst a range of people who came here to tell us about the pain they had endured. There was also Jesse Bird. There was also the advocacy work done by certain people like Heston Russell, who, from disparate and different corners, came to the same issue. We needed to get to the bottom of exactly what was going on here. I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate the work that was done at that time, especially by the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien, who obviously went against the stream to drive for a royal commission. It was the coalition that brought about the royal commission, but it took quite a bit of work. I acknowledge that. When we're talking about people's lives, we have to be very honest about everything that surrounds that. In the brief part I played at that time, I also said I would cross the floor to get this royal commission in place. I'd do that because I also come from a family where both my grandfathers served, my father served and I served. But that is not the issue. It's about trying to understand what happens and why. We've got to try and make sure that people, when they step out of the Defence Force, don't step off a cliff. I think in the future we need to try and help people to step down rather than out. In April 2021, the royal commission was called for. We hope for a conclusion of this by 1 July 2026, when this is to be finally brought about. I must say that it would be better if this had been a little bit expedited and done in a more efficacious way. There is part and process. I know that we have 300,000 veterans, as I was enlightened by the department the other day, so we have 300,000 reasons in wanting to make sure that this process addresses their issues. It's something that probably doesn't touch on the general public, but for those in the public who have a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a grandfather or someone else in their family who has served—every one of those 300,000 people have families—it is of absolute particular interest. We have to realise that to try and get to the bottom of this, as the member for Wide Bay said, we needed a gold-standard inquiry to try and really dig down. The last 50 reports have something like 750 recommendations. To be quite frank, we hadn't got far enough with them. In fact, we hardly got anywhere at all, so we had to be logical and take the next step. The first recommendation of the interim royal commission was a streamlining of the acts. There are three acts that people work under. There's the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, known as DRCA; before that there was the Veterans' Entitlements Act, VEA; and there's the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, known as MRCA. So we've got VEA, DRCA and MRCA. Under these three acts, there is a range of confusion. You have people who have done the same job, so it should be the same rate and same pay. If people have done the same job, they should be dealt with in the same way. Once you sign on the dotted line, you have given licence for you to lose your life on behalf of the country. The vast majority don't, nor do we want them to, but that is what they have offered. When people come back, they've all signed on the dotted line, and therefore they say: 'Why are you treating us differently? Our lives have the same equivalence. Why are we treated in a different form?' What we have at the end of this is, overwhelmingly, a freezing of people's entitlements at where they were, with the exception of few—funeral benefits and exceptional disabilities. But, really, your entitlements in the VEA will stay where they are and not go down, your entitlements under DRCA will stay where they are and not go down, and your entitlements under MRCA will stay where they are and not go down and in a few instances go up to an equivalence. And then you'll have almost—and I argued with the department about this—a fourth act, which I'll call MRCA 2.0. You have people going forward on a new act, and over time there'll be an attrition of people under VEA and DRCA. So I still don't think we've got to a clean sweep of this. I have to always be honest. There are a lot of recommendations and people lobbying for issues. We just don't have the money. It would be disingenuous of me to say that the coalition supports something that I know full well, should the tables be reversed, we couldn't—we wouldn't be able to get it through the Expenditure Review Committee. So we have to be realists. It's a $12-billion-a-year spend in Veterans' Affairs. It's one of the more substantial spends of government. It's substantial. We are dealing with people's lives. This is a classic example of how it affects people's lives. As I said, if there were an accident in Australia and 1,273 people died, it would be cataclysmic, but this has happened in the background, and we really didn't pay attention to it like we should have. But we do need the minister to be in cabinet. That is vitally important. The nature of cabinet is such that, when you're there, there is horsetrading. If you help out another cabinet minister with a certain proposal, there's a belief, in a form of quid pro quo, that they will help you out. If the veterans minister is in cabinet, they can buy that goodwill around the cabinet table. They can say, 'I've helped you out; you help me out.' Therefore, the veterans get helped out because the minister has more goodwill in his kitbag to get something done about their issues. There's a minister for the republic; I don't quite know what they do. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs is sitting beside them, and that's not the right place for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. They should be in cabinet—if nothing else, for the fiscal understanding that such a substantial amount of money is being spent. We should have had more consultation on this. There was supposed to be six months consultation but there were really only about six weeks. To try to alleviate that, we have the royal commission, of course, which will come down on 9 September, but we have a government-run Senate legislative committee which will come down on 3 October. It is very important for the veterans watching these to make sure that you segue into that and have a participation in that process and use that as another form of your engagement in this vital piece of legislation in your life. On the conclusion of that Senate inquiry, no doubt, both the government and the opposition will be coming back with further amendments, and that will be a discussion at a later date. What we're really doing here is introducing the bill, but it is in no way finalised. There is a lot of work to do, and that is very important. If you know how veterans' affairs works—and my father was from New Zealand and part of veterans' affairs, and he got smashed up—it started in 1914. Before 1914, there were just benevolent funds where the public raised money to help people who would come back from wars. It was Billy Hughes at the time who gave a very good speech—it's on the Hansard—basically saying, 'We will look after you when you get back.' From that point forward, around about 1914 there was the war pensions act, and he gave a good speech, and around about 1917, I think—I'll be corrected on that—we started to lay down the path of how we come to have a veterans' affairs department and came forward with what we have got now. There have been a whole range of iterations of these acts. It's a continual sweeping-up process. We have about 103,000 people on the gold card—it's 103,600 or something. The gold card gets you basically whatever medical benefits you want. There are a lot of people—veterans—who want to go onto the gold card, but, to be quite frank, we can't afford it. Once more, I'm trying to be very succinct and very honest, because I come from a family who have been in the military, and they want you to be straight with them. They would rather have the honest answer than have you beat around the bush. There's a white card that gets you a form of support, but not the total that the gold card gets. We have about 186,277 people on that, or something. This is one of the issues where a lot of people, in their discussions with my office, want to find out how they can get better coverage. If we put everybody on a gold card, it would be a multibillion-dollar ask from the expenditure review committee and that would not work. We've got to look after veterans, and one of the crucial reasons for that is the circumstance which Australia now sees itself in for us—the majority of people in parliament—is vastly different to what our children and grandchildren will see. The world is changing. Totalitarianism is now on the rise. The proportion of the world living under totalitarian rule is increasing. Democracies, tragically, in many areas are on the wane, and you can see that with President Xi in China—it's a totalitarian regime, with military control—with Putin in Russia, with Iran and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and even with other areas where they are going to form a quasi-totalitarianism with a sort of guise towards democracy but not really. The comparative power between places such as the United States and any threat has changed. The Pax Americana process also has pressures it has never had before. So Australia has to become as strong as possible as quickly as possible, and if we don't we are completely foolish. We will hand to your children a foot on their throats, because that will be the fruit of our indolence and our lack of capacity to recognise the threats that were imminent and that we can see on television every day but didn't do anything about. But to do that we have to be strong in agriculture, in manufacturing, and our power prices have to be amongst the cheapest in the world, and of course we've got to have a strong defence force. Now, you're not going to have a strong defence force and get people into it unless they recognise that you look after them as they're coming out. That has to be a sales point of why you'd sign up: that if you get out, back onto civvy street, you're looked after. And why should you be looked after? That is because the threats associated with your going away or signing on the dotted line is that you might pay the supreme sacrifice and lose your life. That's part of it. That is a tragedy, and there are about 103,000 people's names on the War Memorial, at the other end of Anzac Parade, which is lined up right through the middle of this table here. If you go out through the front door, at the end of Anzac Parade is the War Memorial, and about 103,000 people have their name on brass there because they died for our nation. Not only that, but especially after the First World War a lot of people died within a year of getting back. We never recognise them. I think there are about 30,000 of them, who died within a year of returning, and they're just as dead as anybody else. Part of that, of course, is that some have committed suicide. They don't get their names on a plaque, but we've got to recognise that if they hadn't served then they wouldn't have put themselves in that psychological predicament; they would have the same rate of suicide as in the general population, whereas for people who've served it's vastly higher. But we should respect them not just because of that but also because some people were psychologically changed. There is a partial reprogramming of how their head works. I saw that among the friends of my father. There were things that we were just not allowed to say in the house; we were not allowed to ask questions about certain things. It was drummed into you: 'You will not ask questions about this.' Also, some people were physically maimed. My father had an anti-aircraft gun barrel dropped on his leg, and his life changed from that point forward. And they have a real anger about it—bitterness—about the disfiguration: going to the beach, people seeing them like that, a continual limp. They feel they were just dropped off and left behind. That's the big thing: they feel, 'We were used, abused and kicked out the door and left on the side of the football field as a sort of oddity, to watch other people play sport.' And there's more than that, another reason you have to respect them. When people go away, families break up. A lot of families just don't work when the partner goes away. My grandfather walked out the door and came back five years later, in the First World War. For five years he just wasn't there. A lot of marriages don't survive that. They break up, and the kids have to deal with the affliction of basically being part of a single-parent family. That's part of their sacrifice and their service, and we've got to recognise that. Other people go away and, when they come back, all their mates have gone on in other careers, have gone on in their lives, have become successful. And you come back completely below where they are. You're sort of a tag-along, so you never really get to where they are, and you feel ripped off that other people have gone on in their lives, and you've been left behind. This is why Veterans' Affairs is so important: because it fills that hole of understanding those issues and making sure that those people, as best as they can, catch up to where they would have been had they just stayed on civvy street, had they just looked after themselves and not signed on the dotted line to possibly get someone to shoot at them. This frustration becomes manifest when people start dropping out of the system. In my discussions with ex-service people—men, predominantly—I hear that it's the case that they go looking for their mates. People are talking to them. They have discussions. It's all very well, after they've been discharged. But then they just sort of fall off the phone line, and they slowly become less and less known. They become silent. Then their mates have to go looking for them and saying: 'How are you going? What are you up to? What's going on in your life?' It's a really bad sign if you are not engaged with other people, if you are not talking to other people and if you are self-medicating. You are doing all the wrong things. It is that sense of loss. It's that sense of loss of connection. It's that sense of: what is my purpose? In the Defence Force, the suicide rate as a serving member is lower than for civvy street. It's lower than in the general population. But it's vastly worse when you get out because there's a lack of purpose. You think: 'I was a soldier. I served. I had purpose. I wore a uniform. I had recognition for what I was and who I was when I went through the airport. Now, who am I? Who am I when I go down and have a beer or when I go to the pie shop? What am I anymore? What is my role? What happens now? Have I already retired? Is that it?' This is something Veterans' Affairs has got to be mindful of. Hopefully this royal commission and the end of the Senate inquiries will bring all those things in. You will never remove suicide from the community. It is a tragic reality. But bringing that rate down to where it is in the general population will show that this chamber has done its job to bring this issue to some form of resolution, which is what we're all trying to do. The three acts, as they become more aligned, we hope will remove the confusions and the frustration people have in wanting to get something resolved, dealing with the department and then just waiting in perpetuity for some outcome. It's going to be of real importance that the Senate inquiry gives ample time for people not just in the major capitals; it must also touch on regional areas. There has to be a capacity. We have a lot of veterans in places such as Wagga because we have the three arms of the Defence Force there. There are a lot of homeless people on the Gold Coast who have served because they gravitate to areas where they believe it's better than maybe Melbourne, like the Sunny Coast. They're obviously around Townsville. All these areas have to have their chance to have their say. The minister is here, and I appreciate that. That is going to be also incredibly important. It's a tough issue, veterans' affairs, because as much as possible we don't want it to be partisan. I don't think people respect that. I think they want more of a unity ticket in how you deal with it. They want you to sort the issues out as best you can off the football paddock and not on it, and I have tried my best to do that. Obviously in these areas you have to show your diligence where you believe something needs to be fixed. You have to ventilate it; otherwise, people think you are just asleep at the wheel and not doing your job. I would like to commend the minister because I think, on the whole, he has been very diligent on this issue. I want to commend him for being across his brief, which I think is very, very important. I hope the minister remains the minister and I hope he actually gets into cabinet. That would be of assistance to all. Mr Taylor 231027 There should be a reshuffle. Mr JOYCE e5d Yes. He should be in cabinet. Mr JOYCE e5d There is always one in every crowd, isn't there? In closing, I would like to commend this bill and thank all those who have brought their tragic stories to our doors and into our offices. I want to say to people such as the Finney family that we have not forgotten them. I want to say to other people who have told us that they feel the threat of family members who they believe have gone into that dark space, we are very mindful of that and are trying to do our bit to bring them out. I want to always commend the 57,000 people who are currently serving this nation. I want to say to the Australian people that, as I said, your children are going to live in a different world. Unfortunately and tragically it's going to be one in which the threat to Australia is vastly higher than it's been before, because the comparative powers of totalitarianism are vastly higher than they have been before. For us to prevail in that circumstance, we have to be as strong as possible as quickly as possible. We have to prioritise that, put aside other issues and note that if we do not have that strength then we have failed at our No. 1 job in this chamber. If we fail we will have handed to our children the prospect of being a vassal state and of having a foot placed on their throat. This wonderful thing called Australia could be lost to us. You most definitely can lose it. Just read your history books. There is nothing written in tablets or stones or by God that Australia will survive forever. It will only survive with the vigilance and diligence of the people who have been given a job to protect it. That is us, for those who have the discipline to be part of a prospective government—not screaming on the sides because they can—and put their shoulder to the wheel. I commend this to the House and I look forward to the conclusion of the Senate inquiry when, no doubt, I shall report back with further information. 12:41 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the shadow minister for his contribution to the debate, and I move: That debate on this bill be adjourned to a later hour this day. Question agreed to. Debate adjourned. Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 6

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

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

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

Second Reading 6 12:43 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move the following second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) that the former Government consistently delivered lower taxes for small business, families, and implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance; (2) the Government voted eight times against delivering a bigger tax cut to small business in last year's Instant Asset Write Off; (3) the Government's last multinational tax bill was so badly designed it taxed Australian companies; (4) that since the election, Australians are paying 20 per cent more income tax and the Government has banked over $60 billion in bracket creep; and (5) that despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Government has broken promises to raise taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, personal income tax, and to end small business tax incentives". We welcome the continuation of the OECD two-pillar solution to multinational tax avoidance, which was started by the coalition and continued by the government. The coalition took extensive action over nine years in government to address multinational tax avoidance. As the G20 host in 2014, Australia played a leading role in the original OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project—or the BEPS project, as it's called—which was initiated in 2013 and delivered in 2015. Under the coalition, Australia was an early and vigilant adopter of the OECD/G20 BEPS recommendations. These establish a multilateral approach to prevent tax avoidance and increase tax transparency to tax administrators. Much credit for this should go to the current head of the OECD, Mathias Cormann, who drove this when he was Australia's finance minister and continues to drive it through the OECD. These are very, very important initiatives. At that time, the coalition government measures included: introducing the diverted profits tax, which limits a company's ability to shift profits out of Australia; introducing the multinational tax avoidance law, which ensures companies do not avoid a taxable presence here in Australia; strengthening the thin capitalisation rules; strengthening transfer pricing rules; doubling the penalties for tax avoidance; and establishing the ATO Tax Avoidance Taskforce. The taskforce, which was created on 1 July 2016, enforces existing laws and supports the government's new tax avoidance measures. It targets multinational enterprises, large public and private groups and wealthy individuals. From 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2021, the ATO in fact raised $24.2 billion in tax liabilities against these groups, and that generated collections of $17.3 billion. Of the liabilities, $15.3 billion were raised against large public groups and multinationals, and $13.6 billion of the liabilities and $9.5 billion of the collections are attributable to the taskforce. Our system of taxation, revenue collection, is undermined when people or organisations avoid their tax obligations, and that means others have to pay more. So it's important that enforcement of fair tax rules is done properly and that the rules around profit shifting and multinational taxation are consistent and fair. It is absolutely crucial that we continue to pursue this not just on our own but with like-minded nations, and that's exactly what we are doing through these initiatives, along with our peers across the OECD. After a glorious 30 minutes of bipartisanship, this is where it ends, because Labor has broken their promises on tax. At the last election Labor said their soul focus when it came to taxation was going to be addressing multinational tax avoidance. Well, we support that, as I have said, but they haven't kept that promise, because they've gone into areas which they didn't tell us about before the election. Even when you look at multinational tax avoidance, they haven't even done that right, because Labor's shambolic handling of the country-by-country reporting issue and changes to thin capitalisation has made the Assistant Treasurer's policy incompetence the stuff of front pages and, indeed, back pages. He's been at both ends of the newspapers with his failures on these all-important issues. The Treasurer has said, 'We have made it very clear we don't have any proposals for tax increases beyond working with other countries to make multinational tax regimes fairer.' Of course, he said that before the election, and, when it comes to Labor, what you say before the election doesn't matter once you've had the election. Despite this promise before the last election to only increase taxes on multinationals, we've seen that promise well and truly broken. Labor has raised taxes on superannuation, or is seeking to, capturing one in 10 Australians over time. Young Australians earning average wages today will be subjected to this tax, according to Treasury modelling. Labor is really crossing the Rubicon by taxing unrealised capital gains. The whole point about unrealised capital gains, as the member for Wannon knows, is that they are unrealised. So you've got to realise them. If it's a farm or a small business that you're being taxed on, then you've got to realise them. That means you have to sell the farm or sell the small business. This is where Labor wants to go. They don't like small business anyway; you can't unionise small businesses or farms, can you? It's a bit hard. So that's where they're going. It's an absolute assault on family owned businesses and the incredibly hardworking Australians that are absolutely the backbone of so many of our communities right across this country. But, if you're not in a union or you're not a union official, your voice doesn't count under this government. We've seen that this is really an assault on self-managed super funds. Why should you be allowed to self-manage your super fund when an industry super fund can do it for you? That's the mindset. We on this side of the parliament believe in choice, deeply, and that means you should have the choice as to whether you want to invest in an industry super fund, a market super fund or, indeed, a self-managed super fund. That is a choice of the Australian people and a choice we will always respect. Thirdly, Labor is increasing taxes on franking credits, banking half a billion in taxes from Australian companies, retirees, super funds and Australian charities by going after franking credits. Again, they promised they wouldn't do it, but it seems all bets are off when you have an election. Who knows what they will say this time around with an election approaching? Finally—or fourthly; it's probably not finally—Labor has ended small-business tax concessions, decimating the instant asset write-off, which is now at a level well below where it was prior to COVID. Of course, this is hugely important for Australian small businesses and many of our regional and suburban communities. Accelerated depreciation and instant asset write-off have been ways of encouraging small businesses to invest in themselves and also, in the process, invest in creating jobs, creating opportunities and supporting their customers. We know, as regional members on this side, how powerful this policy is, and it's why the Leader of the Opposition, in his extraordinary and very powerful budget in reply speech, announced our policy of re-establishing the instant asset write-off at its previous level of $30,000 and, importantly, making it ongoing so small businesses know that they can invest in those bits of kit that are going to grow their business, allowing them to employ local people and support their customers, and giving them accelerated depreciation on the back end of it. That's a huge incentive to get out there, invest and create jobs for everybody. Higher taxes will not help in the cost-of-living crisis. Higher taxes will not solve a situation where we have absolutely anaemic economic growth. Of course, we're going backwards in GDP per capita terms, with five quarters where we've seen no progress in GDP per capita. Higher taxes will not solve the collapse we have seen in labour productivity under Labor—over five per cent in just over two years. It's extraordinary—completely and absolutely unprecedented. Inflation is running this economy, not the government, and our economy is shuddering to a halt. Australians are paying 20 per cent more personal tax than when Labor came to power. Prices for working families are up over 18 per cent. We've just seen some wage data come out today, and we want to see higher real wages for all Australians, but let me tell you the one thing that's absolutely certain about that wage data: it's going up at a slower rate than the cost of living for working families. That is the truth for every Australian. The purchasing power of your pay packet is going backwards. The purchasing power of what's in your bank account is going backwards. That's what inflation does. It is the thief in the night. It is like a mugger. It robs Middle Australia. That's exactly what we're seeing, with real wages for employees—it's employees who earn real wages—having collapsed by nine per cent since Labor came to power and living standards having collapsed by eight per cent. Household savings have collapsed. People are cracking open the piggy bank, working extra hours and cutting back on discretionary spending. The most important point here is that Australia is at the back of the pack in dealing with these issues. We're seeing interest rates coming down in many other countries, including our peer countries, but not here, because inflation continues to rage. This government has absolutely failed to deal with the homegrown inflation that's in front of it. Instead of dealing with the substantive issues, we've seen the Treasurer, whose only instinct ever is to try to spin it, to tell Australians how good they've got it and to pat himself on the back. We all know that is a failed venture, because a doctor of spin he is but a doctor of economics he is not. The result has been diabolical for Middle Australia. A family with a typical mortgage is around $35,000 worse off. That family has to find that, and that is not even before tax; it is after-tax income. That's a diabolical task for any family, and I saw in my electorate the pain that is being inflicted on them on a daily basis from the combination of that extraordinary increase in cost of living across everything they're buying, all the services they use as well as the sharp increases in taxes and, of course, the sharp increases in interest rates that are behind the devastating impact on their standard of living. Changes to these multinational tax arrangements—and we do in principle, subject to the amendments that I have just moved, support them—do not make up for Labor's attacks on aspirational Australians. Changes to multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not make for Labor inaction and failures on homegrown inflation. Changes to multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not make up for Labor's rate rises. Changes to multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not make up for Labor's attacks on hardworking Middle Australians who are trying to get ahead. Australians deserve a government that is focused on the challenges that Australians are facing today. Whilst we won't oppose this legislation, we do not apologise for continuing to hold the government to account for their broken promises on taxes, their failure to take action on productivity and the living standards it depends on and their failure to make fighting inflation their first, second and third priorities. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tehan 210911 The amendment is seconded. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 9 BUSINESS Rearrangement 9 12:57 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 6, Government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 9 BILLS Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 9

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Third Reading 9 12:58 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 9

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024

Second Reading 9 12:59 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The education system—or the education export sector, as it's often referred to—is an important economic contributor to the country, but I question the veracity of the notion that it is actually an export. Apart from tuition fees, all other economic contributions are typically the consequence of students working while here; hence, the figures of $50 billion and more injected into the economy, as proffered by the education sector, are wildly inaccurate and, I would say, perhaps misleading. Celebrating the education sector as an export industry has created an environment for opportunistic agents and providers, many of whom are illegitimate, and they exploit the system. Overwhelmingly, evidence shows us that there are sham arrangements that provide nothing more than a vehicle for people to obtain a workaround for entry into our country. This is not good for the reputation of our education system, and it's certainly not good for the many hardworking Australians who are finding it difficult to find accommodation. The upshot of our grand education export push is the arrival of more people into our cities and regions who cannot be realistically accommodated. I would also say that it is not good for the many vulnerable people who come here whose expectations, perhaps, are not met and who, therefore, are somewhat forced into servitude. If the education sector is the beneficiary of excess students, then it should also bear some of the cost, but it doesn't. It's not required for institutions, agents or indeed providers to match student accommodation with inbound student numbers. Instead, the economy and the community wear that cost. In essence, the sector's economic gain becomes the economic pain of the community. To put that into perspective, in the year to date, to March 2024, there were 741,224 international student enrolments in Australia. This is a 16 per cent increase in enrolments over the same period in 2019, pre-COVID. In my home state of South Australia in 2008, there were 13,329 international students in higher education courses and 4,105 in VET courses. If we look at the 2023 figures, we've gone to 24,775 in higher education and a whopping 17,353 international students in VET courses. It's gone from 4,105 up to 17,353. This obviously demonstrates a significant increase. With that, we can have problems. While the tills of the education sector are awash with cash, mums and dads nationwide are emptying their bank accounts as rental costs increase exponentially. There is no doubt that numbers of close to three-quarters of a million extra people coming to Australia to study put upward pressure on these costs. I appreciate that, particularly in the higher education sector, overseas students are an important part of the economic equation, driving down student study costs—or that's how it is argued. However, we need to carefully balance that with our obligations to provide educational opportunities for our children, which must come first over the economic paydirt of institutions. Surely, as I said, our children must come first. It's also important and incumbent upon us that, as a nation, if we are going to offer educational services, those services must provide high-quality and reliable qualifications—no ghost colleges or visa factories. We've all heard stories of colleges with handwritten signs, with no lights on and with few or no students in the doors. These illegitimate entities are nothing more than profiteers of desperate people seeking work visas in low-skilled work, creating a trail of misery. They are no different from the human traffickers who sell a lie to desperate people seeking a new life in a safe country. The fact that many of these illegitimate providers are not required to provide details on student attendance is paving the way for rorting. These providers are not only exploiting the vulnerable but also exploiting everyday Australians, who are being priced out of rental accommodation. This is unfair and un-Australian. This bill seeks to curtail the worst offenders of exploitation. I support this bill, but I implore the government to properly review the role of the so-called education export and its contribution to housing shortages. 13:04 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I want to read out something from the vice-chancellor of the University of New England. He says: We've always had a very deep and extensive assessment of bona fide students. The genuine student test is something we've spent a lot of time and energy on. We haven't ever had a default of a single [international] student in any degree in our history, not one. This is from the University of New England. We don't have a problem with international students, and we don't want the government to create one. It's vitally important for the financial viability of regional universities that a problem happening in the cities does not manifestly become an infliction on regional universities. The University of New England is in an area where the varsity experience has been very recent. It's one of the oldest universities in Australia. It was a college of the University of Sydney and was formed in, I think, 1937. It's been a fight all the way through to maintain it as a university. I continue to fight for it to this day with funding and programs. I must say that I struggle with the vote there, but, nonetheless, I'm a part of that alumni. When I saw this, I had real concerns. When I went to university, I was in financial administration, which was the accounting faculty, and in some of my tutorials, I was very much in the minority. The vast majority were overseas students. I acknowledge that that's how it works and how we want it to continue. If Armidale lost the university, then Armidale would be decimated. Armidale would have no reason to be any bigger than Glen Innes or Uralla. So we have to keep that university running. Anything that even smells like a threat to it, we have to get in front of it straight away. I welcome that this is going to be considered further in the Senate, which reports on 15 August, but I'm worried that there won't be enough time for places such as Armidale to be properly heard on their issues. I don't know whether the Senate is going to go to Armidale and talk to the people, not only to people in the university but to people in the town, to clearly understand the ramifications of rash or misplaced views that might be very pertinent to another market but are completely different in a regional market. One of the issues we have in regional areas is the low number of people with tertiary qualifications, such as in the city of Tamworth. We're currently extending the university to Tamworth. We don't want anything to happen that will threaten that. It was very hard work to get the extra funding by reason of Commonwealth-funded positions so that we could get the viability of that campus started and approved. The process of disassembling the old velodrome has started. That is where the campus is going to be. This has come in at the last moment and is creating real concerns for us, so it's important for me to make sure that those concerns are noted and to say to the people of New England that I'm very much across this. We'll be corresponding very closely with the chancellor and vice-chancellor of the University of New England to make sure that their concerns are properly heard in this chamber and in this parliament in such a form so as not to put undue risk on the University of New England. I have no doubt that this is probably the case for Charles Sturt University and for other regional campuses that rely on international students. Those students are overwhelmingly bona fide. They're not looking for a job on Botany Road if they're going to Armidale for their degree; they're there for the proper reason. There might be some confusion, especially in its assessment of Nepalese students, that students needing to be present is not an issue for the University of New England. This is a brief contribution, but I want to clearly put on the record for the people of New England that this is an issue for us, and I'll be following it very closely. 13:09 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah International students contribute to the wellbeing of Australians by fuelling economic growth and prosperity that provides jobs for Australians. In 2023 international education contributed $48 billion to the Australian economy. It was responsible for more than half of the economic growth last financial year. Tourism related to international students living in Australia boosts our economy by around $5 billion annually, with each international student attracting two or more visitors from overseas. This is significant. These students also enhance Australia's multicultural fabric, bringing diverse perspectives and fostering cross-cultural understanding. International students who remain in Australia are our largest single source of skilled migrants. They help fill skills shortages in critical industries, such as health care, engineering, IT and education. Others return to their home country to become leaders in business, politics and cultural industries who have a respect and appreciation of Australian culture. So we should nurture this goodwill, not trash it. Let's call out the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, because to me this is a kneejerk reaction to the opposition's false narrative and false attribution of a current housing crisis to international students and their impact on migration, whereas this is a supply crisis. I am concerned that this legislation, rather than standing up for this important industry, is going to damage a very important economic driver of the Australian economy. This is a very important industry, and through this the government is I think looking at driving down immigration numbers because of the scare campaign from the opposition. But by hurting and capping international students, we are putting at risk our international reputation and a major economic driver. International students make up only four per cent of Australia's rental market. So, to attribute our housing supply crisis to them is simply a false narrative. There are far greater long-term structural issues in Australia's housing market that are the causes of problems we face currently. Only that would explain how we now have such a far-reaching bill, so quickly. There are so many concerns around the broad powers that are being provided to the minister. Many have described this bill as a recipe for chaos that, at worst, will risk the closure of certain programs and universities if it is not managed properly. But mostly it will absolutely damage our international reputation and will send a signal to those markets that Australia is not where they want to come and study, that they are not welcome. That is incredibly concerning. It is unclear how the government will be using some of the ministerial powers and the level of intervention that will be possible, and I am concerned that this is quite unprecedented. I have had discussions with the minister, and he assures me—and I will get into more detail in relation to amendments and discussions that I've had. Nonetheless, legislation should be robust and should not facilitate overt intervention by government and a minister, especially in a sector like education. International students and migrants who come to Australia are a huge part of the Australian success story. Welcoming international students to Australia is a proud part of our education history and legacy. If we look back, the Colombo Plan is best remembered for sponsoring thousands of Asian students to study or train in Australian tertiary institutions for several decades, playing a key part in building links with key partners in Asia. The former coalition government resurrected it as the New Colombo Plan during their last term in office to encourage a two-way flow of students between Australia and the rest of our region. International students should not be simply measured by the fees they pay to study here but by the wider contribution they make to Australia while they are here, especially if they remain over the longer term and especially in the context that we have so many sectors with massive skills shortages and no clear pathway as to how we are going to address that. So, what does the bill do? As it currently stands—and I hope there will be amendments and changes in this place or the other—there is not really a lot of detail around the scope of the proposed caps or how decisions will be made and applied to higher education institutions themselves, so the ability to assess the impact on their future operation is limited. It's causing huge angst and concern amongst institutions and for international students who are considering Australia as a destination. There are also additional flow-on effects for meeting Australia's current and future skills shortages and in other areas, like the tourism and hospitality sectors. It has a huge impact on places like Warringah, where there are significant hospitality and retail businesses and staff and skills shortages. There is a reliance on international students for those roles because they cannot be filled otherwise. The alternative is businesses that are not open or that are not open to their full capacity because they simply can't get the staff. I would say that there are other measures relating to regulation of student recruitment, provider and course registration, and provision of education. There have been a number of previous reviews and inquiries into this sector that do not appear to have really landed. The government claims this bill will improve the quality, integrity and sustainable growth of the international education sector but there are many who doubt this. So I support the efforts to place safeguards around education providers to ensure they do provide quality education services to overseas students, and that is provided for in this bill. I do acknowledge that there have been dodgy providers and agents and that the system has been open to abuse and exploitation and that there have been some providers and agents who have profiteered from international students. This bill now allows for stronger action to prevent that and to prevent unscrupulous business practices in the industry going forward. However, the bill also gives the Minister for Education far-reaching powers that, if exercised, could negatively affect our largest services export market, which is international education. To be clear for those watching, the bill will empower the minister to pause the registration of new providers and new courses by registered providers, limit the enrolment of overseas students by provider, course or location over a year and automatically suspend and cancel specified courses on the basis of systemic issues, their value to Australian skills and training needs and priorities or if it's considered in the public interest. The difficulty with that is that it's quite broad. Obviously, it can be open to politicisation as well. So it's a very high-stakes road map that we need to really consider. These are some risks to the Australian economy that I see from this legislation and why I urge the government to really proactively engage with amendments in this place and the other. We know it is our largest services export market and a huge driver of economic growth. Many international students study courses in areas where Australia faces skills shortages areas and they have the potential to fill critical gaps in the workforce after graduation. Around 30 per cent of international students transition to work visas after graduating. During their studies, they also work, as I said, in the hospitality, retail, tourism and service sectors. Overall, 240,000 full-time jobs are supported by international students in the wider economy. By placing an arbitrary cap on student numbers taking particular courses or attending particular institutions, we are telling international students that they are not free to choose what or, in some cases, where they want to study and, in some cases, that they're not welcome at all. The Group of Eight universities have calculated that if they are capped to a pre-COVID 2019 level of international students then, conservatively benchmarking against 2023 figures, it would have a potential immediate impact of some $5.35 billion and over 22,500 jobs for the economy. There's also the political risk to the government of making certain allocations of caps to certain institutions rather than allowing market based forces to determine student numbers. The requirement that the courses offered meet Australia's skills and training needs also make little sense when 70 to 80 per cent of students return home after their studies. So it's saying, 'Come and study what we care about even if you're going back to your home country.' Most need to study courses to meet the skills shortages in their own countries, not those in Australia. Ultimately, Australia is participating in an ever-increasingly competitive export industry. International students are spoiled for choice around the world. This bill puts the reputation of the Australian education system at risk. I call on the government to take the necessary time to take a more nuanced and considered approach to what this bill is proposing. It is clearly unsatisfactory and leaves many with doubts and anxiety and too many questions unanswered. I note, for example, amendments by myself and members of the crossbench to delay commencement for further consideration are at the moment been rebuffed on the basis that it's a commitment by the government. Interestingly, it appears to be more Home Affairs and Migration driving this rather than the education sector, which says this is a political positioning, not a best-interests, merit-based positioning. The feedback in my electorate is that the bill is too broad in its current form, and that far-reaching ministerial discretion is placing caps on restrictions and could have devastating implications. Education providers—even in Warringah alone—have completely different situations. Some have spare accommodation available now and some have student numbers that have not returned to pre-COVID levels, so caps won't make sense. We also have a high credibility and quality rating and have seen increased visa rejections recently, with no reasonable explanations provided. Applying uniform restrictions and caps to one specialty course provider in a less-densely populated area, compared to a university in metropolitan Sydney, where rental properties are largely inaccessible, or to a private English school, is not practical. It's illogical to impose a singular formula for student number caps across such diverse institutions. Moreover, the requirement for additional accommodation to be provided before permitting higher student numbers will be difficult in many cases. I am deeply concerned about giving one federal minister so much overarching power over our education system and the direction it takes. But if the government insists the bill must go ahead then there are amendments that would absolutely improve this bill. I urge the government not to rush this for political expediency but to make sure they put in a system that is actually robust and in the best interests of Australia and this important market. Education providers are concerned that the time in which this has been put in, and given to take effect—for example, the implementation from 1 January 2025—is unreasonable given that those placements would already have been offered and determined, and the plans and budgets have already been set for 2025 in all institutions. It's quite mind-boggling to think the government is insisting that this would have a commencement of 1 January 2025. In discussing tertiary education, we have to raise the issue of HECS fees and, in particular, the actions of the previous government in raising the fees when it came to arts degrees. It's an example of reaching into a sector and deciding, picking favourites on which sectors should be prioritised for study over others. What that has meant is that for thousands of students in arts degrees and humanities the cost has gone up significantly. It hasn't changed what students are wanting to study—they study what suits their needs, what suits their interests what they engage with. What it has meant is a whole cohort is saddled with a huge amount of debt. An arts degree or similar brings essential skills to the workplace, to our society and to our humanity. It nurtures the ability to see different points of view, to research them and to articulate them. These complement STEM skills in positive ways that have been extensively researched and documented. Every day, you can see that degrees in law, economics and arts are of value. We know STEM is also of value, but they work together. It was really worrying that the previous government decided to penalise humanities subjects from a cost perspective. There was great hope that the change of government would mean a reversal of those consequences, but that has not happened, and so the message loud and clear from students and the sector is that the government needs to address that disparity of skills—that's without even talking about the changes required to be made to the HECS system to ensure it is not unfairly burdening students with a system that simply doesn't make sense—someone can be repaying their debt but not being given credit in real time by the Taxation Office for that repayment. It is essential for the government to be a lot more focused on the long-term benefit of this legislation. 13:24 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Everyone in this country knows the problem is not the ghost universities. It goes much further than that. The government clearly, in trying to make it look like they're doing something about the problem, is dealing with two per cent of the problem instead of the 98 per cent of the problem they should be dealing with. It's not anecdotal, I don't think. I was just with a family—lovely people. They'd just come to Australia two months before. I said, 'What visa did you come in on?' and the lady said: 'I came in on a student visa. It's really easy to get a student visa. You always get a student visa to get into the country.' They were setting up a business and obviously intended to stay here forever. God bless them; it was a good business they were setting up, too. And I said, 'But what about your family?' There were six in the family. She said, 'If you get a student visa, you can bring your family in as well.' Ironically enough, three weeks later I was in a taxicab in a capital city and I asked the bloke, 'What unit are you doing at university?' I didn't say, 'Are you doing university studies?' I said, 'What unit are you doing?' He said, 'Hospitality.' He looked to me to be about 50, and I'm sure that he came to Australia 30 or 40 years ago doing hospitality and is still there doing hospitality! Now, if you want your country taken off you, the vast bulk of those people coming to Australia are coming from countries with no democracy, no rule of law, no egalitarian traditions, no industrial awards, no Christianity—and I'm not talking about belief in god; I'm just saying Western civilisation is based on Christianity. You have a responsibility to look after your fellow man and you have a responsibility to make the world a better place. Well, these people are not coming from countries like that. I will be very specific: they are coming from the Middle East, from countries that do not march to a single one of those drums. If you bring them in from the Philippines, tick every box. They can harmonise into our community extremely well. There are people that dress differently from us, but, if you come to a country, don't you become one with that country? I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing; I think the Sikhs are the greatest immigrants that ever came to this country. Nor am I saying that the Islamic religion is bad, because my experience with Indonesians is that they have been just wonderful neighbours to us and, from my experience, they're a lot more Christian than we are. That would be my take on them. But that mob coming in from the Middle East? There are four or, arguably, five wars going on at the present moment, and that's always the way it is. From 750 AD to the present day, they have been either killing us or killing each other. There is something terribly, terribly wrong there. For 500 or 600 years they took 50,000 Christian slaves a year. If you doubt me—a lot of people here don't read history books, and that's very sad. There is Churchill's famous adage that those who do not understand and know history shall be doomed to once again suffer those lessons of history. Good call, Winston; good call. If you know your history, you know of the two greatest leaders of the Middle Ages, Suleiman the Magnificent, head of the Ottoman Empire, and Peter the Great of Russia—only seven rulers in human history have been called 'the Great', and Peter was one of them. These two great men dominated the Middle Ages, and both of their wives were Christian slaves. Now, alright, Suleiman had 430 wives, but he was very much in love with Roxelana. It was a great love affair. It was similar with Peter the Great. Both were Christian slaves. So let's not doubt for a moment. On the other side, we Christians abolished slavery. Yes, we were responsible for slavery as much as anyone on earth, but we abolished it. I'm going sideways. To come back to the essence of this: there are the ghost universities. Twenty-odd years ago, I would say the most prominent person on the university councils of Australia, a very good friend of mine, said, 'Mate, if the student visas'— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Kennedy, I'm so sorry, but the debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and if interrupted you will be granted leave to continue your debate. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Bangladesh 14 13:30 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to call on this House to acknowledge the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding right now in Bangladesh. As I speak, Bangladeshi Hindus are being subjected to increasingly violent persecution. It is sadly not a new occurrence, though it is one that has increased in severity and frequency in recent days. The rule of law and the maintenance of social order in parts of Bangladesh are breaking down, and we are seeing the most terrible outcomes. Hindu neighbourhoods have been targeted, with households, temples and workplaces being attacked by large violent mobs. Families have had to flee their homes amid beatings. Looting and arson attacks are rife, with reports that Hindus are being killed in these attacks. In Bangladesh, there is a lack of respect for people from different faith traditions as well as people who hold different political views. Bangladesh has been sadly noted for its corruption for many years. Political persecution, including the jailing of opposition politicians, has become all too common. I've previously spoken in this place about the plight of Bangladeshi Hindus in Bangladesh. I've put on the record many times my concerns for the persecution of a range of religious minority groups around the world. The plight of Bangladeshi Hindus cannot be ignored. I call on the government of Bangladesh to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law to ensure the safety and security of all its citizens, whatever their religion or whatever their political affiliation may be. The world is watching. Bendigo Electorate: Swift Parrots 14 13:31 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo During the winter break, we had some very special visitors to my electorate of Bendigo. We had some visitors from Tasmania. A colony of the swift parrot actually visited my electorate. It's estimated that there are only about 500 left; that's how critically endangered they are. I had the opportunity, with the Castlemaine chapter of BirdLife, to visit them one morning and see them in action. They are, as their name suggests, swift. It was in Muckleford in my electorate where we saw them enjoying their morning breakfast. What struck me with BirdLife and with the Landcare owners and Landcare carers in the group that we were going out with was the importance of working with local landholders. Whilst we were viewing the birds in a public park, where the birds were feeding and staying was on private land. It was just a reminder of how we at a local level need to work together with our Landcare groups and with our landholders to ensure that we have the habitat that they require. As the parliament knows, the swift parrot is one of only two migratory birds that we have in Australia, and they are critically endangered. That is why our government is committed to doing what we can to ensure that they have habitat now and going forward. New England Electorate: Renewable Energy 15 13:33 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I would just like to note that in my electorate wind towers and wind factories kill swift parrots, so, if you want to protect the swift parrots, be very careful of swindle factories. In my electorate, there have been two big issues: property rights and the incursion by multibillion-dollar companies and individuals to build wind towers. We call them swindle factories because they rip people off. First of all, they rip off the pensioners who can't afford their power bills. They rip off the properties that the transmission lines go over. They rip off those who have to deal with the environment of staring at them for the rest of the time. As a young person, I would go to Limbri public hall. I was actually at Limbri Public School, and I could fit in through the ticket window. Those people I met the other night again feel frustrated and powerless. They feel like people are walking over them. They want to be represented. People have to understand that, if you want to disassemble a wind tower, it's between $600,000 and $700,000. I don't think people understand that that's not going to be disassembled. One thing: check your legal documents. Understand that, if you are caught with this liability, you're caught with it forever. The first fall of the dominos has happened at Doughboy Mountain, and I'm going to continue my rage and do whatever it takes, whatever is required, to bring this scourge to an end. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games, Bull, Mr Allen 15 13:34 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Australia enjoyed wonderful success at the recent Paris Olympics. Our athletes' efforts were nothing short of outstanding. Success, of course, is not by accident and does not come overnight. On 26 July, the day of the opening of the Paris Olympics, Australia lost Mr Allen Bull, one of its greatest in the world of diving. Mr Bull was an international and national coach for diving and was recognised by Diving NSW for his efforts with life membership in 2012. Allen trained divers from all over New South Wales, mentored many coaches and officiated as a judge and referee. He made a particularly strong contribution to the Lightning Ridge community, but Allen was also a proud Liverpudlian. He was born and raised in Liverpool, attended Liverpool Public School and started his apprenticeship in Liverpool. At Liverpool Rotary Club Allen held many offices, including that of president. He was particularly active in the activities of RYPEN, the youth branch of Rotary for under-25s. In addition, Allen helped many charitable causes, especially those organised by his good friend the late Harry Hunt. I offer my condolences to Allen's family and friends. With his passing, diving has lost one of its champions and Liverpool one of its best. Vale, Allen. Hinkler Electorate: Roads 15 13:36 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Well, the missing link has been found. You can stop looking. Not only has it been found; it's been delivered. The Boundary Road extension, the missing link in Hervey Bay, has finally been completed as part of the Hinkler Regional Deal—another project delivered and another critical piece of infrastructure for the people of Hervey Bay and the Fraser Coast. Congratulations to all involved. In particular, I want to mention Bob Goodwin, the head of the local contractor SGQ Pty Ltd. Bob announced on the weekend, at the opening of the road, that this is his last project. He is absolutely renowned across the district for the wonderful projects that he and his now very large company deliver. In fact, in the 1980s Bob was with the then Hervey Bay City Council discussing the delivery of Boundary Road. So congratulations to Bob, and congratulations to everyone involved. This is a great outcome. I congratulate the Rotary Club of Hervey Bay. The Wide Bay Rodders Custom Car Club provided the free breakfast and the coffee. What I will also say is: congratulations to David Lee, a former councillor, and Denis Chapman, a current councillor, for their work on this. Those opposite spruik inclusion, but the inclusion doesn't include local members, because we were advised by the local council that the federal department had told them that I, as the federal member, couldn't be involved. Fortunately, the mayor saw sense and I got the opportunity to be included, not excluded, from the announcement. Wages 15 13:37 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Earlier today, the ABS released the June 2024 quarterly data for the wage price index. This is the best overall measure of wages growth in the economy. The data showed that the WPI rose 0.8 per cent in the June quarter and, more importantly, 4.1 per cent over the year. This follows on from recent releases of 4.1 per cent, 4.2 per cent and 4.0 per cent. This shows that wages have stabilised at a sustainable level but, importantly, at a level materially higher than when those opposite were in power. That's because those opposite had a deliberate policy of wages suppression and, not surprisingly, that policy had results: the lowest sustained wages growth in decades. In contrast, we have a policy of higher sustainable wages growth. That includes supporting a higher minimum wage. It includes higher pay for aged-care workers. It includes a 15 per cent pay rise over two years for early childhood education and care workers. More broadly, it reflects much-needed reforms of IR laws, which for too long have stymied genuine negotiations. Of course, the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts mean that wage earners don't just earn more but keep more of what they earn. For those not earning wages, successive budgets have provided material support through energy bill relief, rent assistance and cheaper medicines. This government is providing real, concrete support for people so that they earn more and keep more of what they earn. Mackellar Electorate: German International School Sydney, Climate Change 16 13:39 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I recently had the pleasure of visiting the German International School Sydney in Terrey Hills. The year 3 and 4 students were keen to read and present their letters to me about climate change. They want their voices to be heard too. Today I will read one from a nine-year-old student: 'Dear Dr Scamps, I'm going to explain why we definitely need to stop climate change. Firstly, bushfires are affecting the earth's habitat, so that is why we are losing a lot of animals. In fact, our animals are dying all over the world from wildfires. We need more people to open their eyes and really think about it. We don't want this. Secondly, sea levels are rising because icebergs and ice caps are melting. This will make it hard for polar bears to move and catch their prey and can lead to them starving to death. In a short time, Fiji may not be here, and the earth will become a mad, gassy planet. Thirdly, pollution is making skies grey. For example, pollution is all because of us, and, in a few hundred years, the earth may become uninhabitable, and maybe we'll have to live on Mars. In fact, the earth without humans would be a peaceful, green planet with flowers blooming—could you just imagine that? For these reasons, pollution is bad, so we need to stop this chaos. To conclude, I believe that we should stop making factories and stop polluting the planet.' Dunkley Electorate: Victoria State Emergency Service 16 13:40 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Last Monday, I visited the Frankston SES unit. I met with the current and past controllers and 60 volunteers. I thanked the volunteers for their exceptional dedication and work ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the community. These SES volunteers give up hours of their time to provide this vital service and keep our community safe. I announced the $5,000 federal volunteer grant they received to undertake a much-needed refurbishment to their recreation and wellbeing area. On my visit, I was able to observe a training session. Training is held on a Monday evening to ensure volunteers are prepared to deal with myriad emergency scenarios in our community. I also had the opportunity to try out the jaws of life. The Frankston SES unit has been operating for decades. I want to give a shout out to Brian McMannis, who has volunteered at SES Frankston for 45 years, and to the new controller, the first woman to hold this role in Frankston. I put out a call to residents and those further afield in the community to consider how they can put their energy into volunteering in their communities in emergency services. Cycling Without Age Australia 16 13:42 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Well before the COVID pandemic, our nation was already experiencing an epidemic of loneliness. While it impacts all ages, it's most evident amongst our older Australians, particularly those in a residential care setting. There's one organisation which I'm particularly impressed with. It's doing something to make a difference in our community. It's called Cycling Without Age Australia. Cycling Without Age volunteers provide free trishaw rides with pilots on the back of the trishaw, giving older Australians an opportunity to get out of their residential environment and enjoy some company in the outdoors environment and an experience in their own community. At its heart, the whole Cycling Without Age program is about generosity: the generosity of volunteers, their generosity of spirit, to try and ease that loneliness burden in our community. This organisation actually started in Denmark in 2012. It made it to Australia in 2016, and there are now 40 chapters operating around Australia. There are hundreds of volunteer pilots who are providing that experience for our older Australians in their own communities. I want to thank them for doing that. Thank you for having the generosity of spirit to give that great experience to our older Australians who have lost their capacity to go for a bike ride by themselves. In exciting news, we are just starting our own chapter of Cycling Without Age in Gippsland. I'm heavily involved with my staff and local volunteers, local people who want to make a difference in our community. We're working to establish our first chapter in Gippsland with the experience in Lakes Entrance, Bairnsdale and Sale. I say to the House: watch this space. There will be more happening in Gippsland with Cycling Without Age Australia. Pearce Electorate: Artificial Intelligence 17 13:43 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I am excited to share some fantastic news about a groundbreaking initiative that will transform education in my home state of Western Australia. The Albanese Labor government and the Western Australian government are proud to co-fund and launch a $4.7 million artificial intelligence pilot program aimed at reducing teacher workloads across WA. This innovative program will be implemented in eight selected schools, including Joseph Banks Secondary College and St James' Anglican School—both located in my Pearce electorate. Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence to assist with lesson planning will allow teachers to spend more time engaging with their students and less time on administration tasks. The pilot program will benefit from a collaborative effort, with the funding being part of the larger $30 million Workload Reduction Fund agreed upon by the education ministers. This is just one piece of our bigger commitment to fully fund all WA public schools by 2026, with a major $777.4 million investment from the Albanese Labor government over the next five years. As our federal education minister, Jason Clare, said: AI will never replace a great teacher, but it can help cut down the time they spend doing admin so they can spend more time in the classroom. This initiative represents a significant step forward in supporting our educators and enhancing the quality of education for all our students. Capricornia Electorate: Health Care 17 13:45 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Capricornia is in the midst of a health catastrophe. Under this government's neglect, emergency department wait times have surged across all categories, pushing our hospitals to the brink. Elective surgery wait times have nearly doubled in 20 years, and public hospital capacity has reached a critical point, with bed availability for Australians over 65 at a record low. My constituents in Capricornia are painfully aware of the dire situation at Rockhampton Hospital, the primary facility for Central Queensland, which serves a population of 230,000. Ambulance ramping at Rockhampton Hospital has soared to over 48 per cent—3.6 per cent higher than in the previous quarter. In the past month alone, the hospital has been overwhelmed and operating at capacity, under tier 3 alert levels, as they struggle to meet the growing demand. The coalition has repeatedly called on the government to take immediate action to address the primary healthcare crisis, which is only adding to the strain on our already overburdened hospital systems. In Capricornia, it has never been harder to see a GP, which is forcing more and more patients into the hospital system in search of care. The people of Capricornia deserve better. They deserve access to quality health care without the fear of long waits and inadequate services. It's time for this government to take strong and decisive action to resolve the healthcare crisis in regional Australia and provide the level of care that every Australian is entitled to. Solomon Electorate: Palmerston Young Writers Festival 17 13:46 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The eighth annual Palmerston Young Writers Festival was the biggest one yet, with 494 entries from young Territorians in years 2 through to 6. I was proud to again be one of the sponsors. We have some outstanding storytellers in Darwin and Palmerston, and this festival is very special because it promotes inclusion. The 'interactive' or 'alternative' pen category means a kid like Xavier can use his QWERTY keyboard to write about what makes him happy and Reginald can use magnetic letters, with his carer's help, to write about a photo of a very happy doggo with his head out of a car window. Xavier and Reginald are students at Forrest Parade School and were awarded first place in their category, so congratulations. Massive thanks to the festival's coordinators, Emma Hansen and Leah Jones. I'm delighted to read a short poem from year 2 student Brooklyn: I am kind, I am funny, I like drawing. And I like painting and my friends are Isabella and Zeph. I can sing and I can shout loud. I'm as curious as a cat. Because I am magnificent me. Well done to Brooklyn, and well done to all the teachers there at Forrest Parade and throughout Palmerston and Darwin in my electorate. I'm really proud of how much our government values education, from the early years all the way through. Curtin Youth Advisory Group 17 13:48 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin My youth advisory group is made up of year 11 students from across Curtin, and each student presented a 90-second statement on an issue they cared about. The standard was high and the issues were varied, but the group selected this speech, from Anna Mackie of St Mary's Anglican Girls' School, as the most compelling: 'According to social media, I should obey men and I am the property of men. Across Australia, social media algorithms are amplifying misogynistic content and directing it towards men and boys. These online spaces foster sexist attitudes and ideas, ultimately normalising behaviour that can lead to gender based violence. In Australia, one in four women have experienced violence from an intimate partner since the age of 15. Urgent reform is needed, and we must utilise the power of education. By incorporating targeted social media education into our curriculum, we can empower our young people to take control over their social media experience. Australia needs to establish a framework to provide children with strategies for the identification and removal of harmful content from their feeds. When our children are able to effectively navigate online spaces, we can turn passive content consumers into thoughtful users. When we take these steps, we can begin to tackle the pervasive issue of misogyny and help prevent violence against women. People across Australia are calling for change, and it's time for us to act.' I congratulate and thank Anna for her advocacy on this important topic. Lewis, Sara, Nurses 18 13:49 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge a brilliant nurse, Sara Lewis, who has been named a 2024 finalist for Aboriginal Nurse/Midwife of the Year in NSW Health's Excellence in Nursing and Midwifery Awards 2024. Sara is a proud Kamilaroi woman. Her healthcare journey began as an Aboriginal nursing cadet, which led her to become a clinical nurse educator, now working in the Wyong Hospital emergency department on the Central Coast. Her story is a powerful testament to her unwavering dedication to professional development and her commitment to developing her skills as a nurse and a clinical leader. Sara demonstrates excellence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health care through dedicated leadership, innovative educational approaches, and her advocacy for patients and the community. I've had the honour of working alongside Sara in the Wyong Hospital emergency department on several occasions and can attest to the phenomenal work she performs every day. She is an incredibly passionate nurse who works tirelessly for patients and to strengthen healthcare services on the Central Coast. Without nurses, our hospitals simply would not function. I would like to take this opportunity to commend every nurse and midwife who provides tremendous healthcare services in our region. I will always support and advocate for our exceptional nurses, midwives and aged-care workers. To Sara Lewis: congratulations on this recognition, and all the best for later in the year. Rodgers, Mr Calvin 18 13:51 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to congratulate Harvey Bowling Club legend Calvin Rodgers, who recently won two medals at the Australian Blind Bowlers Association National Championships. Calvin is a legend. He had a serious car accident at the age of 21, which left him with just 10 per cent vision in only one eye. His life changed dramatically after the accident, but Calvin brought the same positive approach he has to his health and vision challenges to everything else he's done in life. Calvin and his director, Dean Jackson, travelled to New South Wales for this year's championships held at Coomealla Bowling Club. In the men's B3 open singles contest, Calvin's efforts earned him the silver medal. But it was the B3/B4 open pairs competition where Calvin couldn't be stopped! He and Dean teamed up with fellow Western Australian competitor Sharon Werndly and her director, Dot Waller, to take out the gold medal. While Queensland took out the overall competition, all of us in Hervey and Western Australia are so proud to have someone like Calvin representing our state. Well done, Calvin and Dean, on this achievement! I want to commend Calvin for his attitude and positive approach, not just to bowls but to life in general. He has a beautiful family supporting him along the way. Employment 18 13:52 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter There's nothing I love more than hearing about young kids in the Hunter smashing their goals. I want to share the story of one incredible young person in my electorate, Tama. Tama once described himself as a 'terror of a kid', but with the help of Mai-Wel, he is making incredible strides forward. Tama has been working hard to build a bright future for himself. He has earned a variety of essential certifications, including a provisional driver's licence, responsible service of alcohol, responsible conduct of gambling, and first aid and CPR certificates. But his biggest achievement was completing the Singleton Construction Program. This program equipped him with crucial licences: working from heights, working in confined spaces, traffic control combo, and the highly regarded white card certificate. These certifications demonstrate Tama's commitment to expanding his skills and position him strongly for potential employment opportunities in the construction industry, which is a great industry to be in. Tama's story is a shining example of resilience and growth. It shows that, regardless of what challenges you face, if you work hard, you can be whatever you want to be and whoever you want to be. Good on you, Tama. You've done the work, and you've set yourself up well. I wish you all the success in the future. And thank you to Mai-Wel for helping kids like Tama and all the other kids you help along the way. Cost of Living 19 13:54 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook This Labor government has created a cost-of-living crisis. What kind of fantasy land is the Labor government living in when they are boasting about a $300 energy subsidy? I mean, the gall of it. Two years ago the Prime Minister promised that energy bills would go down by $275, yet there are people in my electorate of Cook—and I'm glad the energy minister is walking in—are paying up to $1,000 more. And after the subsidy it's still $700 more. This is the problem with Labor. They believe the answer to higher prices and higher inflation is more government and more subsidies. Higher energy prices, higher subsidies; higher childcare prices, higher subsidies. They believe the answer to every problem is more government and more spending. This is why they've spent an extra $315 billion or $30,000 per household. As Liberals, we believe the answer to high inflation is not more subsidies, it's not more government; it's actually to lower prices. As Liberals, we believe in lower energy prices not by withdrawing supply but by building more supply. We believe you lower housing prices not by making media announcements about a housing fund but by actually building more houses. That's why a Liberal government will always deliver lower prices and a better cost of living than a Labor government. Renewable Energy: Protests 19 13:55 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson On Sunday, a group of people boarded the grand 100-year-old vessel, the Wangi Queen showboat, in support of our terrific Labor candidate for Port Stephens mayor, Leah Anderson. There were elderly people, children and a pregnant woman aboard. They were subjected to what has been described to me as a frightening and dangerous situation. A large recreational fishing boat emblazoned with signs reading, 'No offshore turbines Port Stephens', allegedly purposely harassed the vessel. Those onboard said that the waves created were up to a metre high, and if the skipper had not taken such quick action, it would have been even nastier than it already was. It went on for 15 minutes and left people really distressed and quite shaken. Those involved have defended the action by saying they needed to rock the boat—what big men they are!—because they've been ignored. Well, they haven't been ignored. It is completely untrue as some of the people involved have not only met with me on numerous occasions in my office but have been here, to parliament, to meet with the minister himself about this very issue. They are spreading disinformation and have taken it to the next level with intimidatory tactics. It is not on. It is one thing to peacefully protest and advocate for sensible outcomes, but it's another thing to harass people. I would say to the opposition, who have aided and abetted them in some of these behaviours, to be careful. Just stop it. You were for offshore wind, and now you've turncoated. Minister for Skills and Training 19 13:57 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer 'Immigration visa bungler Giles strikes again'—you can't miss the front page of the Australian today. Today we have fresh revelations about the incompetence of the member for Scullin. We knew he let out 178 detainees, including seven murderers, 37 sex offenders and 72 violent offenders, but now we find out that he released 83 detainees into the community without visas and that he misled the House about it. This man should have been sacked, but, instead, he was promoted to minister for skills. If the PM thinks his mate is going to get an easy run in skills, he'd better think again. For a fortnight, the member for Scullin has been in witness protection while Aussie skills are suffering. Labor's failures on skills is making the housing crisis worse and putting national priorities like AUKUS and infrastructure projects at risk. When the member for Scullin comes out of hiding, he has questions to answer. He must come clean about how many of Labour's 500,000 fee-free TAFE places have resulted in no qualification being earned. How much of the $1.5 billion of taxpayer funds spent on this program have been wasted? He should be fronting the National Press Club tomorrow, but he cancelled. Every day that this incompetent minister stays silent is further proof he should have been sent to the backbench. He is the weakest wildebeest in the herd, and there's nowhere for him to hide. Wages 19 13:59 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck It's not hard to see the chasm between the Liberal opposition and the Albanese government, especially in wages policy. We see the true difference between the major parties, and it underscores the hypocrisy of each and every coalition member, in this place and the other, when they try to speak coherently about the cost of living. In contrast, when the Albanese government sees workers doing it tough, we make sure we do what we can to assist them with the cost of living. Just as we supported rises for aged-care workers, we now have an early childcare sector that is the beneficiary of a 15 per cent pay rise for early childcare workers. United Workers Union members, today I congratulate you. Your tireless representation of and advocacy for childhood educators has made a huge difference to them and to the 1.2 million families across this nation who now know that those looking after their children are getting fair pay. I echo the words of the Prime Minister: this is good for workers, good for children, good for families and absolutely good for the economy. I applaud this effort and our concern and action to support all workers in this country. Those opposite have the temerity to stand in this place and try to pretend that they care about the cost of living, but we know it will be a cold day in hell before we see the miserable opposition support any sort of pay rise for workers in this nation. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 20 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 20 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport will be absent from question time today and tomorrow at least. The Minister for Health and Aged Care will answer questions on her behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 20 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the now Prime Minister promised to cut electricity bills by $275, provide cheaper mortgages and ensure families would be better off on the cost of living. Instead of reducing costs for working families, he's delivered 12 mortgage rate increases and a 22 per cent increase in electricity prices, and the cost of food and groceries has jumped by over 11 per cent. Why does this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly promise one thing and do another? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my right. The minister for infrastructure and the Treasurer were continually interjecting during that question. The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question again. I could not hear what he was saying. So no more interjections during questions. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Prime Minister, before the election you promised to cut electricity bills by $275, provide cheaper mortgages and to ensure 'families will be better off on the cost of living'. Instead of reducing costs for working families, he's delivered 12 mortgage rate increases and a 22 per cent surge in electricity prices, and the cost of food and groceries has jumped by over 11 per cent. Why does this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly promise one thing and do another? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question that, of course, in accordance with standing orders, had no argument in it whatsoever! In our first year in office, we delivered cheaper child care, we delivered cheaper medicines, we delivered fee-free TAFE, which has just been opposed yet again by the Leader of the Opposition, and we expanded the single parent payment. Those four measures had something in common. They were all opposed by those opposite. On 1 July, there was a tax cut for every taxpayer. Again, those opposite said they were opposed to it before they knew what it was. Then they said they'd roll it back. Then they said we should have an election on it so that they could reverse it. Last week, frontbenchers, including the shadow finance minister, were out there again being critical of those tax cuts. They opposed the energy bill relief for every household and every small business. That has been delivered, including the $300 that was delivered most recently to begin on 1 July. I assume they'll oppose the extra two weeks of paid parental leave, which would be consistent. We know they're horrified by the idea of a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines. They said that 60-day dispensing would lead to the end of the pharmaceutical industry, that no chemist would be there. I don't know where they go for their medicines. Mr ALBANESE R36 Just like Whyalla was going to disappear, as the Treasurer says. We know as well that they've opposed all the wage increases for people who are on the minimum wage. We know that with the first increase—that $1 coin that was raised during the election campaign—they said it was loose; they said it would have devastating consequences. And of course we know today that over the last year wages have increased by more than inflation, and that is a good thing for working people. We also know that those opposite opposed the 15 per cent pay rise for our childcare workers, for early educators, who are delivering so much. So, every time we have a cost-of-living measure, there are two things that are certain. One is that we will work hard to make a difference. The second is that they'll oppose it. (Time expired) Economy 21 14:05 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Treasurer. Why is decent pay such an important part of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to help ease cost-of-living pressures? And how does this approach differ to what has failed in the past. 14:05 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin On behalf of the member for Aston, the Prime Minister and everyone on this side of the House, I say to the early childhood educators who are with us here today that we're proud to be delivering the pay rise that you need and deserve to do your really important work. Our economic plan, our budgets and our government are all about helping Australians earn more and to keep more of what they earn to help with the cost of living. That's why we're focused on fighting inflation, on tax cuts for every taxpayer and on decent pay for Australian workers. In that light, today's new wages numbers are very encouraging. They show that wages grew by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter and 4.1 per cent in annual terms. This is the first time in 15 years that wages growth has gone four for four: four consecutive quarters of annual nominal wage growth of at least four per cent. Nominal wages didn't grow above four per cent for a single quarter for almost a decade under those opposite—not once. Since our election, average annualised wage growth is almost double the rate we saw under our predecessors. Opposition members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 They're interjecting about real wages. When we came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent. In today's numbers, real wages grew again in annual terms for the third consecutive quarter. That's because decent pay is absolutely central to our cost-of-living agenda: minimum wages up by $143 a week on our watch, a wage rise for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, four quarters of wages growth with a '4' in front of it, and annual real wages growth for the third quarter in a row. So, on our watch: almost a million new jobs, a tax cut for every taxpayer, and two surpluses; inflation has halved and wages growth has almost doubled. They don't like to hear it. They hate wages growth. That's why wages were stagnant and workers didn't get a look-in for a decade. That's why real wages were falling. Those opposite hate wages growth, just as they hated it when rates didn't go up. They hated it when underlying inflation went down. They hated it when we gave a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer. If they had their way, wages would be lower, inflation would be higher, there wouldn't be tax cuts for every taxpayer and there'd be less help for people who are doing it tough. In this regard, they are hopelessly divided on every issue except this one: they want people working longer for less. Under this Prime Minister and his government, Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That's what we see in today's new wages numbers, and that's why they are so encouraging and so welcome. Economy 21 14:08 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. After three failed budgets, Labor has added over $315 billion of spending. That's over $30,000 per household. Last week— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will pause. I don't know how many times I've got to say this. Questions are going to be heard in silence. The Minister for Housing was at the top of her lungs. She's warned. People are not to interject during questions. The member for Hume will begin his question again. Mr TAYLOR 231027 Prime Minister, after three failed budgets Labor has added $315 billion of spending—over $30,000 per household. Last week the RBA governor linked demand to inflation and said, 'We've revised up our forecast for demand growth, and that's due to stronger forecast public spending.' This Prime Minister promised to reduce the cost of living, but the RBA says his decisions are pushing up the cost of living. Why does this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly promise one thing and then do another? The SPEAKER 53517 I'm not happy with the last part of the question, that descriptor. 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I really do thank the member for Hume for his question because what he's done is expose the coalition plan for $315 billion of cuts. He stood up here at the dispatch box and he spoke about $315 billion of spending. The shadow finance minister said on 1 August, 'I can tell you exactly what we wouldn't have done: that additional $315 billion of spending.' That's what they say. It's confirmed by the shadow Treasurer and backed up by this Leader of the Opposition. Let's have a look at what that is. There's indexation of the aged pension; apparently they're against that. There's indexation of income support payments; they're against that. We know they're against the 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. We know they're against the increased wages for aged-care workers. We now know that they are against funding for new medicines on the PBS—every one of them. Those life-saving drugs are all wasteful, those drugs that will help people in need with cancer and with diseases who need these drugs and need them listed so that they can be affordable. Under them, prices will go way up. We know they're against cheaper child care. We know that, just before question time, the deputy leader confirmed that they're against fee-free TAFE for the 500,000 Australians who have received it. Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was about his policies and how they are failing Australians— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, as you previously ruled, a point of order can't just be another attempt to get a media grab. When someone's clearly being relevant and the point of relevance is stated— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr Burke DYW it's a clear abuse, like the abuse that's continuing now. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about a specific figure, the $315 billion figure that was being mentioned. If you bring a figure into it, obviously the Prime Minister may contest or argue that figure and what that means. Because this has been continuing, the practice is clear on page 554. I ask all members to review this: … it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies— but it's equally— … reasonable for Ministers to discuss alternative approaches as part of a free flowing debate. That is in practice. In 2015 Speaker Smith adopted the same process, as Speaker Andrew did in 2000, and allowed debate on alternative approaches. You may not like the answer, but that is the practice and that is moving forward. As long as the discussion is about alternative policies within the context of the government's own policies, I'll be adopting the same practice during the debate. Mr ALBANESE R36 This is precisely the figure that he used in the question. They're against more money for infrastructure. They're against funding to secure the future of the National Archives and the National Library. They'll all be there cheering the Olympians, but apparently they're against funding the Brisbane Olympics 2032 as well, because they had nothing in the budget to fund it. They're against funding for biosecurity threats that we introduced as well. They're against funding for PPE and vaccines in hospitals. They're against the funding, the GST revenue, that we have passed on to the states to pay for hospitals, for schools, for police and for essential services. This question exposes what they are against. This nonsense campaign from those opposite, who produced nine budget deficits compared with this government that has produced two budget surpluses. Ask it again. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting and the member for Hume will cease interjecting. Workplace Relations 22 14:15 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Education. What has been the response to the Albanese Labor government's decision to lift the wages of early childhood education and care workers? 14:15 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the fantastic member for Chisholm for her question. As the Treasurer pointed out, up there in the public gallery today are some of our fantastic early educators, including people who have worked in this sector for 10, 15 and even 20 years. They've been waiting a long time for this and waiting a long time for a government that properly values the work they do in caring for and educating our youngest Australians while their parents go to work, and educating them and preparing them for school. They deserve more than our thanks. They deserve a pay rise. That's what we're doing, with a 15 per cent pay rise for the more than 200,000 early childhood educators, including the workers who are in the gallery today. The fact is that more often than not they're women—95 per cent of our early educators are women. In addition to the 15 per cent pay rise, we're putting in place a fee cap to keep prices down for the more than one million parents who rely on the work of these essential workers. When I first got this job I spoke to my cousin, Karen, who's been an early childhood educator for more than 30 years. She gave me three tips: (1) don't say 'kids'—kids are goats—call them children; (2) it's not babysitting; it's early education; and (3) the first five years of a child's life are everything—everything they see, everything they hear, everything they eat, every smile, every book they read and every lesson they get shapes and changes and makes them the person that they become. On this side of the parliament, we get it. Up there in the crossbench, they get it. But over there in the Liberal Party, they still don't get it. If you need evidence of that, look at the rambling remarks of Senator Gerard Rennick. If you need reminding, he said on the weekend that child care and the work of early educators 'destroys the family unit'. Understand what that means. That's not just a criticism of the work of the early educators in the gallery; that's effectively shaming every single mum in this country for wanting to go back to work when they have kids. At the last election less than one in three women voted for the Liberal Party, and now you've got Liberal senators effectively shaming Australian women by saying that early education destroys the family unit. This isn't just bonkers; this is flat out wrong. Today he's doubled down and is tweeting the same rubbish again. Another day and the opposition leader still can't muster a smile, still can't muster the courage to call out these loons in his party room. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Red Cross, Japan: Australian Political Exchange Council, Indonesian Parliamentary Delegation, Djojohadikusumo, Ms Saraswati, Fiji Delegation, Beyond the Broncos Leadership Program 23 14:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I have a number of acknowledgements I'd like to make. I inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from the Australian Red Cross, led by its president Charles Burkitt and the new CEO Andrew Colvin, who are here today to mark 110 years of service by the Australian Red Cross. I'm honoured to inform the House that present in the gallery today are delegates from the Australian Political Exchange Council's 19th delegation from Japan, led by Mr Hisayuki Fujii. I'm honoured to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Ms Saraswati Djojohadikusumo along with the Indonesian parliamentary delegation, led by Mr Ravindra Airlangga. Also in the gallery are members of a delegation from Fiji who are participating in the Integrity and Excellence in Public Governance Masterclass 2024, which will be led by the honourable Rachel Nolan and Ken Smith AO. Finally, in the gallery are members of Beyond the Broncos emerging leaders program. On behalf of the House, welcome to you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 23 14:19 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Minister for Housing. Yesterday the minister apologised for referencing Treasury modelling on build-to-rent that didn't exist, then seemed to claim the 160,000 figure came from Property Council modelling of Labor's scheme, which is also not true. In fact, the Property Council says Labor's plan won't build any extra housing. Experts say build-to-rent overseas sees big corporate landlords use rent-maximisation strategies by algorithmically coordinating rent hikes and keeping properties vacant to drive up rents. Why does Labor want to give money to developers to hurt renters and drive up rents? 14:20 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I'm not surprised by the nature of that question. Doesn't it say it all? Questions like this are not going to help us build a single new home for a single person in our country. And I want the parliament to really hear this. Labor has a $32 billion Homes for Australia plan that we are implementing, and when we think about what we are doing in this policy space, we're thinking about these childcare workers who are sitting up in the gallery. Those are the people that have every entitlement to deserve the support of government to own their own home. We are thinking about homes for Australians, not silly debates in Parliament House like other parties in this parliament. Let me say a little bit about this build-to-rent scheme which is in the Senate at the moment—a really core and integral part of Labor's commitment with the states and territories around this country to build 1.2 million homes desperately needed by Australians. I spoke to parliament yesterday about some of the terrible implications of the housing shortage that we have in this country. We have got millions of Australians whose lives are fundamentally affected by the fact that they cannot get the housing they need. The answer to this problem, to the rental distress, to the housing unaffordability and to the rise in homelessness that we are seeing is that we need to build more homes. That's why our government has supported this ambitious target to build more homes for Australians. When we look at our rental market in Australia, there's a unique difference between the way we're doing things here and what we see overseas. One of those differences is that we do not see this particular type of rental—build-to-rent, as it's known in the sector. We want to assist Australians to have lots of different rental options. What the research shows and what the experts show is that the scheme in the Senate will build more homes. There is dispute about how many homes, but it will be tens of thousands of additional homes. If we want to stop success and progress on this matter then we should play politics—business as usual. We should continue to have the Greens building this unholy alliance with the Liberals, who dropped the ball on this for an entire decade. We'll continue to see them come into the Senate and say that they care but block progress and play politics instead. I can tell you that through all of this debate, our government will have a single focus: more homes and more affordable housing for more Australians, and that's our commitment to our citizens. Early Childhood Education 24 14:23 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government recognising the skilled and professional work early childhood education and care workers do to help our youngest Australians to grow and thrive? What approaches to early childhood education has the government rejected? 14:23 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the amazing member for Bendigo not just for her question but also for her continued advocacy and her tireless support for the early childhood education and care sector. Early childhood educators and workers deserve a wage that reflects their professionalism, their qualifications, and the quality of education and care that they provide, and that recognises the valuable contributions they make to our economy and, importantly, to the wellbeing of Australia's children. Today, as the Prime Minister and minister have pointed out, we are joined in the gallery by some early childhood educators. On Thursday, when the Prime Minister announced a 15 per cent increase in the wages for early childhood workers, there were tears of joy and tears of relief. That's because early childhood workers have, for too long, asked something very simple: they've asked to be valued. They've asked to be recognised by the government, just as they are by the parents who entrust them with the care and education of their children. That is not a big ask at all. Paige, a passionate educator, hit the nail on the head when she said: 'It's so great to have a female led industry actually being recognised as having real qualifications and actually being more than just babysitters We are educators who help develop children, and the first five years are so crucial for them, so it's actually nice to be recognised for what we are trying to do.' They are the words of Paige. This is good policy. It's good for the 200,000 workers who will get a pay rise of at least $100 a week before the end of the year, it's good for the 1.2 million parents and families who will be assured that fee increases are capped, it's good for the economy and it's good for children. It really is a no-brainer. But I'm asked about other approaches. The only other approach is that coming from the opposition, who have refused to back this in, who have refused to denounce the comments made by the captain's pick senator and who, in a media release, alluded to this as somehow undermining the Australian way of life. Well, I would like to see those opposite turn around, look the workers in the eye and explain to them why they think they don't deserve a pay rise and what they mean when they refer to an Australian way of life. The opposition want to make this all about ideology so that they can continue to denigrate and ignore the importance of the contribution that our early childhood educators and teachers make to child wellbeing. I'll finish with the words of Lisa, who said, 'I can stay in the job I love, and that is going to change a lot of lives, not just my own.' (Time expired) Housing 24 14:26 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Housing. Yesterday the minister was forced to apologise after claiming Treasury had modelled the government's failed build-to-rent policy. During question time yesterday, the minister claimed some experts believe CFMEU corruption and illegality has 'no impact on residential construction'. Can be minister name those experts? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right, cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wills will leave the chamber under 94(a), immediately. The member for Wills then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 There will be no interjections whilst questions are being asked. 14:27 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham That question is just following up on the shameless politicking of the Greens. We again have a Liberal come forward and ask a question not about how we're going to build more homes for Australians but about how we can play more politics in this parliament. I can tell you really clearly that my focus in this role is not about what happens here in Parliament House. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is 30 seconds into her answer. She's just going to pause. I am not sure what the remainder of her answer is going to be in terms of direct relevance. She'll just pause for a moment. I'll hear from the member for Deakin on a point of order. Mr Sukkar 242515 Thanks, Mr Speaker. The minister has had 30 seconds. The question, again, was very tight. I asked the minister to name the experts— The SPEAKER 53517 No, resume your seat. The Leader of the House on the point of order? Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: the shadow minister seems to have forgotten all the quotes and all the comments in the preamble, all of which open up the relevance rule. There was a series of comments leading up to the section at the end, and he can't take a point of order on relevance thinking that only the last few words will constitute the relevance rule. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. We'll handle this. Unlike yesterday, when I ruled that it was a tight question and the minister had to be directly relevant, when you add commentary and reports regarding things that happened in the past, obviously the minister is able to be directly relevant to those parts of the question. Yes, that was a part of the question, but, when you add in other things—unlike yesterday, this is broader question. Mr Sukkar 242515 I'm responding to the— The SPEAKER 53517   You don't need to respond. Resume your seat, unless it's a different point of order. I've explained to the member the difference between yesterday's question and this question and the elements of it, but I will hear him on a point of order. Mr Sukkar 242515 I do appreciate that. This question is similarly tied to yesterday's question. The SPEAKER 53517 No, it's not. Resume your seat. So the point of order on relevance has been taken. We've ruled on that. We've made the decision. So, for the remaining two minutes 30, the minister will be directly relevant. She has the call. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Absolutely. I'd say again that— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Ms O'NEIL 140590 if we continue to see this approach from those opposite and from those on the crossbench, we're never going to get the kind of traction that we need to fix this problem for Australians. We will see a change to the housing situation in our country where we see people coming together in the centre, the states and the Commonwealth working together and the different political parties around this country setting aside politics for once and actually working together on this problem. I have hope for the crossbench, but, for those opposite, I don't hold out a lot of hope. The truth is that we had a decade of government in this country where those opposite sat on these benches and did nothing about the housing problem in this nation. In fact, I'll just share two facts with you. One of them is that, in the last five years that the coalition were in power, the housing ministers around this country didn't meet a single time. I'll tell you one more. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin is warned. He has asked the question. He's going to remain silent. If he interjects one more time, he won't be here for the remainder of the answer or question time. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I'll tell you one more you've seen, led by our Prime Minister, for whom secure housing was an indelible part of his journey to the Prime Ministership in this country. We have brought the Commonwealth back into the housing discussion. We spent and invested more on housing in just our last budget than the coalition did in the entire nine years that they were in power. They have no credibility in this debate, and this question does not lend them a single shred further. Wages 25 14:32 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government supporting our vital early childhood education and care workers with a pay rise, and what has been the response? 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lingiari for her question, and I also join in welcoming the early educators who are here in Parliament House today for question time. Last week we announced the increasing of workers' wages for workers in the early education sector by 15 per cent—10 per cent in December, with $103, and then a further five per cent in December of next year, adding up to $155 a week. There are two parts to the deal: increased wages as well as keeping fees down for families. This is policy that's good for workers, good for children, good for families but, importantly as well, good for our economy. We know that accessible, affordable child care is key economic reform. It is low-hanging fruit—if we can increase workforce participation and boost productivity. It means that women will be able to return to the workforce earlier or work additional time, helping family budgets and making an enormous difference to our economy. It follows in the great tradition of other Labor reforms as we move towards universal provision, Medicare, superannuation and the NDIS—these great economic reforms that are not only good for our economy but also good for our society. I'm asked how this has been received, because we know that those opposite take a different view. The minister today was talking about the comments of Senator Rennick yesterday, who said that it would 'destroy the family unit' and it would 'brainwash children early with the woke mind virus'. We know that this is a fellow who's been supported and personally endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. But, to my surprise, the senator has doubled down. He wrote to me yesterday. It explains, perhaps, why he's not only against childcare provision. This is what he had to say about cost of living on behalf of the coalition. He said: 'The best way to deal with the cost of living is to repeal the financial deregulation that occurred under the Hawke-Keating government.' So now we have the policies of nuclear energy in the 2040s, divestment of supermarkets and financial deregulation to go. We'll just re-regulate the whole economy and that will fix it! Don't worry about paying people properly. Don't worry about economic reform or workforce participation. How out of touch are they? Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 26 14:35 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Housing. The minister yesterday in question time claimed CFMEU corruption and illegality has 'no impact on residential construction in the view of some experts'. Can the minister name those experts? 14:36 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I will just say to the member opposite that I am not sure what point he is trying to make here. If he believes that the CFMEU are driving up residential construction costs— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Moreton and the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The member was heard in silence, and the minister's going to be given the same courtesy. Ms O'NEIL 140590 If the member opposite believes that the CFMEU is driving up residential construction prices then why are the Liberals not helping us clean up this union in the Senate? Whatever your view about this, the policy fix is the same. We have a union that's a problem and our government is taking steps to fix it, and the Liberals are trying to stop us from doing it. Mr Sukkar 242515 Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This was, under your instructions, a very tight question. There was nothing expansive about the question. It referred to the minister's statement and asked her to name those experts. If the minister cannot name those experts because she made that up— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The member for Deakin is entitled to take a point of order. He is not entitled to then add extra commentary to the point of order. That is an abuse of the standing orders. He was on a warning. He will now leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 Has the minister concluded her answer? No? The minister is in continuation, then. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Isn't the air just feeling a little bit fresher in here now without the member for Deakin in the chamber? Not for the first time the member for Deakin is making absolutely no sense. If he is concerned about the impact this union is having on residential construction prices then he can go into his caucus room and talk to his senator colleagues about helping our government clean up this union. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Ms O'NEIL 140590 What's up with these guys today, Speaker? The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will cease her remarks. The Leader of the Opposition is on his feet. The Leader of the Opposition has the call on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's obviously a serious topic. I ask whether your ruling is that this minister is in order. The SPEAKER 53517 We've been going down this path for a while. If I make a ruling at the time, as I did, there's no opportunity to come back and ask for a second chance on what the ruling was. No other Leader of the Opposition has done that before. We have moved on. I'm just going to ask the minister to conclude her answer. Mr Dutton 00AKI I'm asking for your ruling, Mr Speaker, if it wasn't clear before. I thought it was. To make it clear for the House, is it your ruling that the minister is relevant to the question that was asked of her? Mr Burke DYW That's a second point of order on relevance, which is clearly outside of standing orders. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. Just so I'm clear to the Leader of the Opposition: you don't have standing to raise another point of order on clarification of a ruling. It's never happened before in practice. I understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to get me to go back in time to say what my ruling was and clarify it. Mr Dutton 00AKI I can ask you to make a ruling, Mr Speaker, under standing orders. The SPEAKER 53517 Sure, but we'd already made it. When I dealt with the member for Deakin, if you were not happy with the way I handled that and you wanted to move something on that, you could have done that. It doesn't enable you to do that in the future. We've done this a couple of times. Just for the clarity of the House, when a ruling is made, that is the time to take action. You're not to then wait a couple of minutes or 30 seconds to go: 'I seek your ruling. What was your ruling?' Okay? The minister will conclude her answer. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Thank you, Speaker. I regard these continuous points of order as a real mark of success and a great compliment from those opposite. Thank you so much, fellas! The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is going to conclude her answer without commentary. Ms O'NEIL 140590 In concluding, I would say that it's very clear what's going on here. The coalition are in the parliament again, and they are playing politics within an inch of its life. If they cared about costs in residential construction, as they claim to do, they should tell their Senate colleagues to go into the Senate and help our government clean up this sector. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 27 14:41 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to clean up the CFMEU? 14:41 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the Chief Government Whip for the question. The No. 1 job of any union is to protect its members and to look out for their interests. The reported behaviour from the construction division of the CFMEU is the opposite of this, and the government has zero tolerance for violence or thuggery or intimidation. The best way to deal with this is by putting the union into administration. We made clear that we would support an application from the regulator, the general manager of the Fair Work Commission, and we would intervene in support of an application for the union to be put into administration. We also made clear that, if the union in any way resisted that application, we were willing to legislate. It's clear that the union has not agreed with what was put forward in the Federal Court, and therefore we are legislating. There are effectively two groups that have been seeking to delay administration. We always presumed there would be the lawyers from the CFMEU. We hadn't suspected there would be the senators of the Liberal and National parties. But we have a situation now where the unity ticket on delaying the union being put into administration— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW What some of the leadership of that construction division could have only dreamed of is being considered to be delivered for them by the Leader of the Opposition and his senators. The impact of administration is that the government's bill will ensure a clear pathway for an administrator to take charge of all branches of the construction division of the CFMEU for up to three years, to review individual union officials and determine whether or not they should retain their position— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher is warned. Mr BURKE DYW and to examine how money is being spent and whether money being spent is in the best interests of members. Legislation puts obligations on officers, on employees and on professional advisers to cooperate with the administrator to access all assets, all property and documents for the purpose of the administration. If you had deregistration, though, the entire leadership would remain in place. Because of laws that were changed under WorkChoices, their capacity to appear before the commission would remain constant. There is an opportunity now where, if we want to clean up this organisation, the legislation is before the parliament, and it should be passed. Makarrata Commission 28 14:44 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. On Insiders recently, when asked about establishing a makarrata commission with responsibility for truth-telling, the Prime Minister said, 'Well, that's not what we've proposed.' But on election night 2022 the Prime Minister promised to implement the Uluru statement in full—Voice, truth-telling and treaty—and he repeated that promise on more than 34 occasions. Why does this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly promise one thing and do another? 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. The theme of this year's festival at Garma—which was broadcast even if you weren't there and even if there wasn't anyone from the coalition who made the effort to sit down and engage—was 'Fire, strength, and renewal'—strength and commitment from First Nations people to deal with the trauma that many of them feel from the defeat of the referendum, which is very real. Regardless of where you stood on that issue, I would have thought that it would be appropriate to have some respect for the family of Yunupingu. Djawa, who has taken over the leadership of the Yolngu people, is the brother of Yunupingu, who was farewelled just a year ago—a great Indigenous leader and someone who was responsible, probably more than anyone else, for the Uluru Statement from the Heart. What we did there was to acknowledge, as the incoming minister has done, the need to reach out— The SPEAKER 53517 It's going to be difficult to take a point of order on relevance here. The Prime Minister is framing his answer, obviously. around where he made the statements. Anyway, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN It is on relevance, because the question was about the Prime Minister's statements about makarrata, and he hasn't mentioned this at all. The SPEAKER 53517 I won't be accurate about where the statements were made, but I'm assuming the Prime Minister would know where he made the statements, which was at the festival, on the interview. But he can explain it to the House. He should just make sure his comments, when he's talking about his position and about the policy topic, are being directly relevant. We'll make sure that he continues on that standing order. Mr ALBANESE R36 The statement I was asked about was a statement that I made at the Garma Festival, and I'm talking about the Garma Festival. That was where I made it. At that festival, we talked as well with First Nations people about a new pathway towards how we close the gap. The new pathway was all about economic empowerment and trying to search for a way to achieve what I would hope everyone in this chamber wants to see achieved: a closing of the gap in education, a closing of the gap when it comes to health, a closing of the gap when it comes to life expectancy, when it comes to all of— Ms Ley 00AMN 'Makarrata'—are you going to say that word? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question. She can have silence for the remainder of the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 Now, I don't quite understand how any of these comments can draw partisan interjections. One of the things that Senator McCarthy said yesterday in the parliament was: … we learnt from the referendum. The pain and hardship that was created for First Nations people in this country was because there was no bipartisan support… She went on to say that we want to walk down the pathway of trying to get maximum support for an objective. The referendum was held. The yelling has to stop, and we as a nation need to work on ways in which we can achieve better outcomes, and that is the focus of my government. (Time expired) Critical Minerals Industry 28 14:49 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering A Future Made in Australia by supporting our critical minerals industry, and what is standing in our way? 14:49 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the very hardworking member for Swan for that question. A Future Made in Australia will be built on the most significant budget for the resources sector in a generation, including a 10 per cent production tax incentive credit for critical minerals, valued at over $17 billion. This production tax incentive will drive investment in processing critical minerals onshore, here in Australia, and ensure that Australia gets a greater share of the benefit of adding value to our vast mineral resources. It will help create well-paid jobs, open up training pathways, and protect our sovereign capability. We will make more here in Australia and help the world to decarbonise. I'm asked what is standing in the way. Well, you don't have to look too far: it is, of course, the Liberals and Nationals opposite. It took mere minutes for the coalition to reject this industry supported incentive on budget night earlier this year, but apparently the opposition leader is now changing his tune and, according to some reports in the media, a package is shortly on its way. But we know Western Australians and, indeed, all Australians can't really believe a word that is said by those opposite. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition says one thing on the west coast and a completely different thing here in Canberra and on the east coast. In the absence of any coherent policy or any way to explain their failure to support the critical minerals industry, the opposition leader, as the Minister for Industry and Science observed yesterday, simply says, 'We will have more to say.' Well, that may be a pithy catchphrase, but it would be far more useful for the critical minerals sector if the Leader of the Opposition simply said yes to production tax credits. But, of course, the Leader of the Opposition can't say yes, because, while he's in Perth trying to fool Western Australians, the shadow Treasurer is on the east coast opposing production tax incentives and calling them welfare for billionaires. This is a form of class warfare I did not expect to come from the opposition. The coalition are also at odds with their state colleagues in Western Australia. Libby Mettam, the Leader of the Liberals, and Shane Love, the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Nationals, have joined Labor Premier Roger Cook in backing the production tax incentives. The coalition are, surprisingly, also at odds with industry, despite claiming to be their great protector. Of course, they were once so enthusiastic about the resources sector that they had two ministers for resources. But it's an even bigger mess now they're in opposition than when they were in government. Of course, we can't forget the time they tumbled the resources portfolio right out of cabinet so that the Nationals could have their little argument about who was going to be their leader. Instead of supporting PTCs, they say all sorts of things about the policies of the government. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 What they need to say is yes to production tax credits, because that's what the industry has called for and it's what this government will deliver—a future made right here in Australia. (Time expired) Gambling Advertising 29 14:52 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Australia has been a world leader in protecting our young people from smoking and vaping. There is irrefutable evidence that gambling is also a serious public health threat, especially for our young people, through suicide, addiction and family breakdown. The public health community is united in its call for a complete ban on gambling advertising. As the health minister, will you heed the public health community's call and support a full ban on gambling advertising to protect our children from being preyed upon for profit? 14:53 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for her question and her deep engagement on health policy since being elected to this parliament after a very long career in health as a GP. As I think the member knows and other members in this parliament know, the issues that she has raised in her question are being led, in terms of the government response, by the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Social Services, but I am happy to give a perspective from our position in health. Gambling services are among those goods and services available in the community that, consumed and enjoyed responsibly and in moderation, lead to no harm to individuals themselves or to those around them, including their families and the broader community, but that, used to excess or used in a problematic way, can cause real harm both to the individual and to the broader community. Problem gambling in particular, as the member points out, can cause very serious harm to an individual and to those around them, and that harm can extend particularly to mental health impacts like anxiety and depression. Pathological gambling—as the member, I suspect, knows—is now a recognised mental illness in DSM-V, the latest version of the DSM, which is the psychological diagnostic manual. That's why, of course, this government, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, has taken more action than any government before it around prevention, early intervention and harm reduction when it comes to problem gambling. The Prime Minister outlined a range of those measures yesterday, in response to a question from the member for Goldstein. They are very significant, and, in two years, they are way more than any government—Labor or Liberal, frankly—has ever delivered in this parliament before. I'm not going to go through all of them. They are very significant. I particularly want to refer, though, to BetStop, which I think is the most significant harm reduction measure ever initiated in this parliament. To get to the heart of the member's question around advertising, the Prime Minister did say yesterday that the status quo regarding the saturation of gambling advertising, particularly where children are exposed to it, is untenable. As he also said, the government is working through those issues, and that work is being led, very appropriately, by the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Social Services. Future Made in Australia 30 14:56 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Treasurer. Why are production tax credits a central part of the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia plan, and what are the obstacles to their implementation? 14:56 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for her characteristically perceptive question and for being a great voice out of the west here in the national parliament. Our focus is on easing the cost of living, fixing the budget and strengthening our economy. That's why we're investing $22.7 billion in A Future Made in Australia to create more jobs and more opportunities right across the country. This is all about maximising the economic and industrial benefits which will come from the big global shift to net-zero emissions. The biggest part of our plan is tax breaks, and that's deliberate, because A Future Made in Australia is all about attracting private investment, not replacing private investment. We know that the global energy transformation represents a golden opportunity for Australia, and our production tax credits will help us make the most of that opportunity. They'll incentivise investment in renewable hydrogen. They'll boost production of refined critical minerals. They'll create new jobs in new industries and also leverage our traditional economic strengths. Everyone on this side of the House wants Australia to grab these opportunities. But, once again, those opposite have collapsed in a shambolic and humiliating heap, this time on production tax credits. In this instance, the shadow Treasurer has been uncharacteristically clear. For example, on 14 May he said, 'We don't support the $13.7 billion of production tax credits.' On 15 May, he called them 'handouts to billionaires'. On 8 August, he said: … we have been very clear that we don't support the production credits. I don't know how much clearer you can be. He's so certain that he's already counting them as a saving in his budget, which makes him about $300 billion short. To be fair, the Leader of the Opposition also called them corporate welfare. But in Kalgoorlie, as the resources minister said, he changed his tune, and today we read that the opposition leader has hinted at a rethink. If you listen closely, you can hear the familiar sound of the shadow Treasurer getting rolled again. The Leader of the Opposition has humiliated the shadow Treasurer and he has torched whatever is left of the shadow Treasurer's credibility. He has rolled him on stage 3 tax cuts, migration, superannuation for housing and supermarkets, and now they are deeply divided on production tax credits. This side of the House has a plan for A Future Made in Australia. That side of the House is an embarrassing shambles, divisive and divided—in the third year of a three-year term, and still no coherent view about production tax credits, still no costed economic policies and still no economic credibility. Makarrata Commission 30 14:59 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. Have you ever committed to establishing a makarrata commission? 14:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Bradfield for his question. The member for Bradfield, when it comes to Indigenous affairs, does have an interest—he's so interested that he held two forums during the referendum: one for yes, and one for no. That's how interested and committed he is in advancing the interests of Indigenous Australians! I refer to my previous answer. I outlined, at Garma, a plan for economic empowerment. I'm outlining practical plans for housing: $4 billion for remote housing. We have an agreement through the schools agreement in the Northern Territory to lift people up on education— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI A point of order on relevance: the question couldn't possibly be tighter; it was direct, and it deserves an honest and straightforward answer from the Prime Minister, which has escaped him so far. The SPEAKER 53517 Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? He's 40 seconds in. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. He's taken the point of order. And I'm just going to remind the Leader of the Opposition, and all members, that reflections on members are highly disorderly, and it goes to both sides—standing order 90; I just want to remind people about that standing order. You're entitled to make a point of order, but I'd just ask members not to reflect on members. The Prime Minister is 40 seconds in. For the remainder of his answer, he's going to have to be directly relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 When it comes to makarrata, 'makarrata' of course means coming together after struggle. One of the things we're doing is consulting, post-referendum, as— Mr Dutton 00AKI Just answer the question! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr ALBANESE R36 you expect us to do. A bloke who was responsible for questions being asked last year about whether interest rates would be determined by the Reserve Bank if the referendum was carried speaks about honesty when it comes to Indigenous affairs. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 What we will do is consult. That is what we are continuing to do. We're consulting, but we're also putting out there a range of ideas that I would hope could get the support of people in this parliament, across the board—on economic empowerment, on opportunities for job creation. We have the beginning of the remote jobs plan as well, taking the old CDP and creating real jobs with real wages with real training for Indigenous people. That is precisely what we want to see to advance the interests of Indigenous Australians. Agriculture 31 15:02 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia helping to unlock the potential of Australian grain growers? And what could be standing in the way? 15:03 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank our terrific member for Hasluck for her support for the grain growers in Western Australia, her home state, and indeed around the country. She understands that the grain and oilseed producers are world-class innovators. And they are indeed innovating. It was terrific to be at an event that they hosted in Parliament House last night, together with the minister for infrastructure. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM It's no surprise that the member is excited about our Future Made in Australia and what it can mean for grain and oilseed producers. Labor's Future Made in Australia plan will help maximise the economic benefits of the move to net zero. One of the priorities of the Future Made in Australia plan is the development of the Australian low-carbon liquid fuel industry. This is something that's already happening overseas, and it's happening with Australian grain and oilseeds overseas. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor and the member for Barker are now warned. Ms COLLINS HWM Sixty per cent of canola exported to Europe is used to produce biofuels. And whilst our agricultural trade is critical to the industry, Labor wants these jobs and this innovation here in Australia as well. We want more opportunities for our producers both here and overseas. That's why our Future Made in Australia plan will see more of the produce staying on shore and being transformed right here into sustainable fuels for Australians. We saw in our recent budget $1.7 billion for the Future Made in Australia innovation fund— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting or he'll be warned. Ms COLLINS HWM and this will support to development and production of low-carbon liquid fuel pathways here in Australia. This will help the potential of tens of thousands of grain and oilseed growers around the country, creating more jobs and unlocking the potential of local industries, often in regional communities around the country. GrainCorp, of course, has stated: An Australian renewable fuel refining industry will build a valuable new domestic market for our nation's growers and feedstock producers, with the benefits flowing on to regional communities and consumers. That is GrainCorp on the industry's potential with the Future Made in Australia—and who could argue with that? Well, apparently those opposite are arguing with that. I'm surprised that the Nats over there aren't supporting the farmers, the grain and oilseed producers, who want to turn their products into biofuels in Australia. They should be backing Labor's plan because it is about a sustainable future and making sure our farmers and our producers, the people doing the hard work day in and day out, get the benefits of the Future Made in Australia as will local communities right around the country. Gambling Advertising 32 15:06 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This is a question for the Minister for Communications. I understand there are AFL executives in the House today. Is it true that the government continues to water down its proposed gambling reform because of pressure from the powerful broadcast media, sports codes and gambling companies, against the wishes of the Australian community? 15:06 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the honourable member for her question. The problem of gambling harms is there, and I'm sure every member of this place is concerned about that. On the important issue of wagering advertising, I've made it clear that the status quo is untenable. The need for meaningful action is clear, and we know that Roy Morgan insights recently showed, amongst other things, that the number of people betting on sports has doubled in the past five years and 10 per cent of sports betters are classified as at risk of problem gambling. We know that this is unacceptable. That's why we need reform and that's why we need to get reform right to deliver both harm reduction and cultural change. Now, commissioned under the Albanese Labor government, we had a comprehensive report by our late colleague Peta Murphy with one of the best analyses of the problem. It is time now to turn to implementation. There are three priorities at stake here: tackling the normalisation of wagering in sport, reducing the exposure of children to wagering advertising and tackling the saturation and targeting of advertisements, especially in the online space and especially to vulnerable groups such as young men aged 18 to 45. The member's question goes to stakeholders. The member's question goes to the process that we are undertaking at the moment in addressing these priorities. Having gathered the evidence about harm in response to this report, we have assessed the impact of various options and we're consulting on a proposed model. Stakeholders are putting their views forward, and the government will continue to consult in a mature and orderly manner consistent with a proper cabinet process. The member's question also contained some imputations, and I think it's important to have the facts here. For example, not assisted by some commentary: … Teal independent MP Zoe Daniel said that Rowland had met 66 times with gambling executives in six months, according to documents uncovered following a freedom-of-information inquiry … It goes on to be repeated in a quote from the member for Goldstein: 'She is conspiring with the sector to continue grooming young people.' That is not what those FOI documents uncovered. In fact, the documents will show I met zero times with gambling executives. We will continue to go about this process with the facts in an orderly way, because facts are important here. (Time expired) Biofuels 32 15:10 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to support regional Australia, including through the creation of a home-grown, low-carbon, liquid fuel industry? What kind of support is this Future Made in Australia receiving, particularly in the regions? 15:10 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. She's a strong advocate not just for the people of Newcastle but also for the regions overall. We do understand that there are people under pressure and people who are doing it tough in our communities. As a government, our No. 1 priority is delivering cost-of-living relief through tax cuts, energy relief and pay rises. Our policies are helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. At the same time, we are also working on new jobs for the future—that is what our Future Made in Australia policy is all about—a key pillar of which is creating a domestic, low-carbon, liquid fuel industry here in this country. It will help hard-to-abate transport sectors to reduce their emissions while, importantly, creating new jobs and opportunities all the way across regional Australia, from growers to refineries. This policy is good for regional Australia, creating new income streams for farmers and new opportunities for workers. Right now, much of our farmers' feedstock, including 60 per cent of Australian canola, is exported to Europe to produce biofuels. Supporting a low-carbon liquid fuel industry is a policy we know the National Party have been calling for, for quite some time. We know the National Farmers Federation said in their submission on the Future Made in Australia policy that the NFF has long supported the development of the Australian bio-energy and low-carbon liquid fuel industries, with Australian agriculture playing an important role in the supply chain. We know that regional communities are set to benefit from this policy. It's supported by GrainCorp, Bioenergy Australia and the petroleum industry—like BP, who are working to establish a renewable fuel site in Kwinana in Western Australia, a state that is set to benefit significantly from a future made in Australia not only on low-carbon liquid fuels but also on critical minerals. We know there is already work undertaken by Ampol, GrainCorp and IFM to explore establishing Australia's own integrated renewable fuels industry in Brisbane—a really important initiative. What we know from the nods from the National Party is that they support it, that they get it. We also know that we've got a shadow Treasurer who says that this is billions for billionaires, failing to understand the importance of working with the private sector to create more jobs, particularly over in the west. And now we've got the Leader of the Opposition crab-walking away when he's over in the west. You can't say one thing over in the west and another thing here in Canberra. Those opposite don't care about what happens in Western Australia. They don't care about Western Australians' jobs. On this side we are supporting local jobs and we are supporting the regions. On that side of the chamber they are saying our efforts are a wasted effort. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 33 15:14 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This government's spending making inflation worse 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— 15:14 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Before the 2022 election Australians had good reason to be hopeful. They had a strong economy. They'd come through COVID. They had a budget that was in balance, and we had come through the pandemic well. But, of course, in the lead up to that election in May 2022, Labor had promised more. They had promised lower energy prices, lower electricity prices—indeed, $275—a lower cost of living, cheaper mortgages and higher real wages. Australians, of course, took them at their word. Australians, understandably, are good people. They are trusting people. But, sadly, the experience of the last two years tells a very different story indeed. In that last two years the cost-of-living index for Australians who are working has gone up by over 18 per cent. As of today we see an 18 per cent increase in the cost of living for working Australians. Those opposite like to crow about how wages are going. Sadly, wages have only got up at half of that rate—at 8.8 per cent versus 18.2 per cent. Here's the point that those opposite don't get: it's the purchasing power in your pay packet that matters. That's the only thing that counts. The reason Australians go out and work hard is so that they can buy the things they need to live for their families to get by every single day. Those opposite don't get that when prices have gone up by double the rate of wages, then the purchasing power in their bank accounts and pay packets dissipates. That is exactly what's happened, with a reduction in real wages of over nine per cent for working Australians during that timeframe. Central to that are 12 interest rate increases under Labor. The saddest indictment on what we have seen since those happier days back in early 2022 when there was real hope for Australians is that, compared to peer countries, we are absolutely at the back of the pack in dealing with inflation. Indeed, since December last year we are the only one of the major 10 countries in regions around the world that has seen inflation accelerating—going up. In every one of those parts of the world, other than us, we've seen inflation going down. We are absolutely at the back of the pack. Those opposite like to make international comparisons. That's the one that counts. We are seeing interest rates starting to come down in many of those countries, but not here. I'll have more to say about that in a moment. But, at the same time, we're seeing an economy that has shuddered to a halt. GDP per capita hasn't gone forward for five quarters. We are in a household recession, and, in that grim economic context, we've seen 19,000 businesses going into insolvency. It's tragic to have to say this, but that is a record, and there are many lives and many family businesses that have been absolutely shattered by that set of circumstances, and we're seeing it every single day. Whilst those opposite pat themselves on the back, we go out and talk to Australians who are doing it very, very tough. This is not the Australia that Labor promised. This is a poorer Australia. Australians have got poorer since Labor came to power. Part of this is that not only is inflation too high in Australia but it's too sticky. After three failed budgets—$315 billion of extra spending, $30,000 per household—we are now fighting on two fronts: an economy that's shuddered to a halt and inflation that's sticky. The harsh reality is that the Reserve Bank is saying this. It's calling it out. It's abundantly clear. The RBA said just last week that inflation, and therefore interest rates, will be higher for longer. That sends shudders down the backbones of so many Australians and Australian families who are trying to make ends meet every single day. Last week, Michele Bullock, the governor of the Reserve Bank, said, 'Make no mistake: inflation is still too high.' She also went on to say that she is not expecting to see rates come down any time this year. There are many Australians who felt the pain of that when she said it. This is a result of a Labor government that has failed to make inflation—beating inflation and fighting inflation—its top priority. Independent economist Steven Hamilton put it very well when he said, 'Every lever of government has been geared towards exacerbating inflation.' Indeed, the RBA went even further. On page 4 of its Statement on monetary policy, it says: Public demand is forecast to be stronger than previously expected, reflecting recent public spending announcements by federal and state and territory governments. It's true that their mates in the state governments are adding to it. That's true. We know that. The Victorian government and the Queensland government are big spenders too. They're all doing it together. They're all in it together! There's no doubt about that. On page 50 of the Statement on monetary policy, it says: The stronger outlook for public demand reflects ongoing spending and recent announcements by federal and state and territory governments. This is backed in by Chris Richardson, another independent economist who is highly respected. He went on to say that it's 'clear as they can be', referring to the Reserve Bank. He said, 'There is extra spending in the system as a result of the budget'—the failed budget, the third failed budget of this Treasurer. But apparently that wasn't clear enough for the Prime Minister or the Treasurer, because they both claimed that the RBA didn't say that. It's in the transcripts. It's in the statements. It couldn't be clearer. But, when the only thing you've got is spin, I guess you just spin. There's nothing else you can do. This was the Treasurer on RN Breakfast. This is good stuff. When it was put to him that Commonwealth spending, including by Labor, is fuelling inflation, he said: 'I don't accept that. I don't agree with that.' Well, the Reserve Bank governor said otherwise. And what about the PM? He just went into denial. He said, 'That's not what they've said.' They went to war. They want to fight with everybody, including us, except inflation. The only thing they don't want to fight is inflation, and that's exactly the one thing they should be fighting. There is a long list of economists who have made similar comments. In the cost-of-living committee last week, Shane Oliver said, 'The RBA's job would be a lot easier if they didn't have the surge in government spending that's been occurring over the last few years.' How much clearer can you be? Steven Hamilton said, 'The RBA has got its foot on the brake, and the government has got its foot on the gas.' That's a good line. Warwick McKibbin, former RBA board member, said that he agreed with the RBA governor rather than the Treasurer. He said, 'It is excess demand that's the problem. Government policies are adding to excess demand.' Richard Holden, a respected economist, told the cost-of-living committee last week that Labor had delivered three very expansionary budgets that were putting upward pressure on inflation. I don't know how many people I have to quote here, but it's clear that there is a better way. Those opposite spent $500 million on a failed referendum. They are spending billions on corporate welfare. It was pointed out by one of my colleagues that one of the billionaires has decided to give the money back because it's no good, but, anyway, that's what they're doing. They are giving millions in grants to the union movement, including the CFMEU. Grants to the CFMEU—that's well-spent money, isn't it? No wonder they don't want to deregister it! Whilst I'm talking about deregistration, productivity in this country is going backwards by five per cent. It's unprecedented. We've never seen labour productivity go like that as it has in the last two years, making the job of the Reserve Bank nigh-on impossible. The Reserve Bank governor herself has said that. She said: 'We would really like productivity to get back to its trend levels before the pandemic. That will be the key to the fortunes of this country.' Those opposite have no idea. They are out of their depth. They are out of touch. They are getting every decision wrong. 15:24 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga It's been 40 days since the last MPI in this place. The member for Hume could have used that time to reflect on how he could step up to support Australians. But we've had no such luck. We're back and we're back to those opposite complaining and saying no. They're saying no to supporting Australian workers. They're saying no to supporting Australian women, like the early childhood educators our government is supporting with a well-deserved, much-needed pay increase. We know that those opposite are against tax cuts for Australian workers. Those opposite are against wage increases for Australian workers. They're against cheaper childcare. They're against fee-free TAFE. They say no because the reality is that they're not up to saying yes and doing the hard work of supporting Australians and building our economy. So it's been 40 days, and we come back to more of the same. It's more of the same disappointment and more of the same negativity. Australians know they can't trust the Liberals and the Nationals. They know this because, when they look at the member for Hume, they don't see someone who's ready to step up and support Australians. They see someone who cannot be taken seriously. It's almost as if the member for Hume wants higher interest rates and higher inflation so no-one notices he has no policy and no credibility. He's almost cheering on and begging for higher interest rates because that's also his record and the record of those opposite. Of course inflation was higher under those opposite. We experienced a decade of drift and neglect under the Liberals and the Nationals, and that demonstrates to all of us their inability and their failure to deliver for Australians. Those opposite left us with higher inflation and with huge deficits. And even now, as we're in the third year of a three-year term, they still have no positive plan for this country. They still have no plan to support Australian workers and to support Australian women. They still come in here saying no. We can see how much worse Australians' lives would be if the Leader of the Opposition were in charge. We can see that because he tells us. There would be higher power prices. His nuclear frolic would cost $600 billion to produce just four per cent of Australia's energy by 2050. There would be higher taxes and, of course, lower wages, which again we remember were a deliberate design feature under those opposite when they were in government. That's the reality awaiting Australians if the Liberals and the Nationals have their way. Of course we remember that, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Health, he undermined Medicare, starting a six-year freeze to Medicare rebates and trying to abolish bulk-billing by introducing a mandatory payment on every single visit to the GP. The previous Liberal-National governments, which the Leader of the Opposition was a senior member of, repeatedly said that they would deliver a surplus, yet they went none for nine. Instead what they delivered was a trillion dollars of debt and deficits as far as the eye could see. By contrast, Labor, this side of the parliament, are investing in Australians for now and into the future. We are putting in place a responsible plan that is delivering results, and we will in fact be the first government to deliver back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades. It is no surprise that much of the negativity we get from those opposite comes at the expense of Australian women. There is not a positive plan for Australian women that the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite haven't wanted to say no to. There's not a woman who wanted to stand for Liberal preselection that they haven't wanted to say no to either, but I'll save more on that for another day. So when our government announces a much-needed 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, a female dominated workforce, all we get from those opposite is more negativity. What better example of the state of the Liberals' and Nationals' views towards women than Senator Rennick's post on social media this week. Senator Rennick clearly has not stepped foot in a childcare centre this century. His comments that institutionalised childcare destroys the family unit and brainwashes children are incredibly out of touch and incredibly insulting to all the women who work in those centres and to all the families who rely on those centres and the excellent service and education they provide. They are downright dangerous views from senator who was personally backed by the Leader of the Opposition to have his place. That a member of the opposition reacts in this way to women being paid fairly for critical work they do, that he reacts by shouting about a so-called woke mind virus, tells Australians everything they need to know about those opposite's views towards women. I note that those views of Senator Rennick have still not been denounced by the Leader of the Opposition, and I look forward to him telling Australian women that he does not share those terrible views. This pay raise is important. As Lisa, an early childhood educator of over 20 years, said, it is a 'monumental moment'. It is life-changing for workers and for the kids and the families who rely on early childhood education in those crucial early years. Another early childhood educator, in my home state of Victoria said, 'Instead of searching for a second job, this pay increase will now help me pay rent and put food on my table.' Karen, an early educator in Queensland, said, 'Those who work two or three jobs just to make ends meet will be able to spend more time with their families.' So, in delivering this reform, our government is keeping prices down for Australian families while delivering for Australian women and Australian workers. It is good for Australian workers, it is good for Australian families and in fact it is good for all of us, because we are also setting up the next generation with the best possible start in life. I get the privilege of seeing this first-hand in my own life when my three-year-old comes home and shares with me the letters and numbers he's learnt at his early education centre that day, as well as the friendships he's making and the way he's learning to navigate the world. I've also had the experience of what it looks like when we don't back this vital sector. Like so many Australian parents, I've received the text message you get saying that your centre is down on staff members, that they're over ratio and you need to come and pick your kids up today. So, we do need to support this sector. We need to support the vital staff to continue to work to make sure the sector thrives into the future. I also get to see first-hand how hard the educators who support my son—the educators at centres across my electorate, from Ivanhoe to Eltham—work to support Australian children: the skills, the training and the dedication they bring to setting up our next generation for the best possible future. It's good for early education workers, good for Australian women and good for Australians. And everyone has backed it—everyone except those opposite. We know that those opposite do not just have negative words on their agenda. They also have cuts on their agenda. What a surprise, that the Leader of the Opposition would look to borrow from the playbook of previous leaders, such as Tony Abbott, and that he would consider cuts to basic support payments for the elderly or wage cuts—as I said, keeping wages low was a design feature under the previous government—when people are already under pressure. This is not just financially irresponsible; it is callous and cruel. The Leader of the Opposition should come clean with Australians about where these cuts that they're all talking about will cut from. Will it be the indexation of the age pension that's cut? Will it be social security payments indexation? Where are the cuts going to be? Again, we remember that when the Leader of the Opposition was the health minister, in a former government, we saw savage cuts to Medicare. We saw the track record he brought to government. We saw the attitude he brought to supporting Australians. We can only worry about what that will mean if he has the chance to be in charge. Our government is focused on supporting Australians with the cost of living. We know the pressures are very real at the moment. That is why we are delivering relief, with every Australian taxpayer, not just some, getting a tax cut, and our $300 energy bill relief flowing to every household, and 2.6 million low-paid workers getting their third consecutive pay rise, backed by this government. Inflation is still higher than we'd like, but it is less than half its peak and it is much lower than we inherited from those opposite. At the time of the last election, inflation had a '6' in front of it; now, it's got a '3' in front of it. Underlying inflation has moderated, and the momentum of inflation pressures is downwards. Our budget strategy is supporting Australians. We will continue to do the work to support Australian workers, to support Australian women, to build the future this country needs, while all those opposite can do is say no. 15:34 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I have spoken many times about the cost-of-living crisis and the impact on my constituents in Mallee. Australia is the only economy that has seen inflation increase, not decrease, since December. Labor's homegrown inflation continues to hurt small businesses in my electorate, who shoulder the weight of employing locals and keeping the lights and the heaters on in homes across Mallee. They are small and often family businesses who are now anxiously considering closing down. A recent Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey indicated 57 per cent of regional and remote businesses have considered leaving or closing their small businesses just over the last 12 months. The latest Australian tax office statistics show 46 per cent of small businesses did not make a profit in the most recent reporting year. Three quarters of self-employed business owners, for whom their business is their full-time livelihood, earn less than the average total weekly full-time wage. Small-business owners are getting older, with the average age now 50, up from 45 in 2006. Only eight per cent of small-business owners are under the age of 30, half of what it was in the 1970s. And what are they hearing from this incompetent government? Nothing, crickets, nada. Andrea Doering runs Joywood Fashions in my hometown of Mildura and has been in business for 50 years. In her own words, Andrea said this week, 'Small businesses are copping it.' She says that, after COVID, they struggled like everyone else and consequently reduced staff until, as a small business, they got down to her husband, herself and one other staff member. She said: 'We worked hard. People don't realise how hard you work. Over the last 12 months, it's been tough—a brutal economy, brittle. It's just about to break. When I was young, we used to make five-year plans, but now you go day to day. You can't forward-plan in a business. Everyone rides on the back of small businesses. We won't exist. I can see other businesses dropping off every day. My husband says, "There goes another one. That one's shut." They're shutting up left, right and centre. There's no hoo-ha; it's just like, well, another one's bitten the dust. And there is no funky rhythm from Queen to accompany that line. It is nothing but sad.' Andrea says: 'In Mildura, nobody is running businesses on leases. Everyone is on month-to-month.' She says, It's a whole different game out there.' Andrea is not the only one who believes this Labor government hates Mildura and lays the blame for our current regional economic conditions on Labor. She says, 'They do it to us on purpose.' What an indictment on this shocking government. Steve Timmis in Mildura runs the very success Fossey's Distillery, a producer and retailer of the famous Fossey's Gin. Steve says: 'In the last 12-month period, my sector is down about 40 per cent gross revenue. Additionally, our costs have risen 20 per cent. Everything has gone up: electricity, wages, superannuation. That is a 60 per cent difference on where we have been. Nobody is spending. Instead of going out one or two times a week, now it's once or twice a month. People have hunkered back down. They do not have free money to spend. I am no spring chicken and I am worn out after COVID. A lot of people at my age or younger are just worn out. I hunkered back down and I didn't spend money on myself. I had over 15 employees but they no longer work for me. I ensured they found other jobs before they left. It's a sad decision. There is not one little sniff of happiness anywhere, really.' These are the human faces of Labor's homegrown inflation crisis. Their reckless policies and spending are driving up the cost of living and the cost of doing business. 15:39 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I'm thankful to have this opportunity today to talk about the real work we're doing to support local people in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales south coast to help ease the cost of living while, importantly, putting downward pressure on inflation. We know that people are doing it tough. Inflation is still higher than we'd like, but it's less than half its peak and much lower than what we inherited from the coalition. We're providing meaningful cost-of-living relief in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures while laying the foundations for a stronger and more resilient economy. In my electorate of Gilmore, 64,000 taxpayers are getting a tax cut, which they are starting to see in their pay packets. That's an average tax cut of $1,405 per annum for a taxpayer in Gilmore. In fact, 87 per cent of taxpayers in Gilmore are now getting a bigger tax cut than they would have got under the Liberals' plan. Our energy bill relief of $300 for every household and $325 for around one million small businesses is also starting to flow. Our cheaper medicines policies have already saved over $2 million for people in Gilmore, and it's putting downward pressure on inflation. We've frozen the maximum PBS co-payment on medicines for one year, and pensioners and concession card holders will pay no more than $7.70 for their PBS script because we've frozen that for five years. The Batemans Bay Medicare Urgent Clinic has seen over 6,000 patients, all bulk-billed. The new Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic at Milton is also providing much needed health assistance, again bulk-billed. We're helping build a more resilient community, one that makes more things right here in Australia and in my region, because we want a future made in Australia. Our fee-free TAFE is making a real difference in skills shortage areas, with local trades courses booming, which is essential for local businesses and jobs. What a fantastic announcement just last week: the Albanese government will fund a 15 per cent pay increase for early childhood education and care workers. A typical ECEC educator who is paid the award rate will receive a pay rise of $103 per week from December 2024, which will increase to at least $155 per week from December 2025. On Thursday last week, I visited the ECTARC The Basin Education and Care Service at Sanctuary Point, and I talked with early learning educators. It was Early Learning Matters Week, and it's easy to see the important work of early learning educators and what a positive difference early learning makes for children. But the availability of early learning centres and educators is also critical for working parents in my electorate, because if you can't find care for your child then how do you go back to work? Time and time again, I have had parents very concerned about the availability of care for their child and how it was impacting their ability to return to work and run their business. We all knew what a big part of the problem was: early learning educators weren't paid enough. This was historical, but it needed to be fixed, and that's what we're doing. This is a responsible wage increase, deliberately and responsibly designed, which takes pressure off childcare fees. We know that families, workers and businesses do need to make sure that early learning educators are paid appropriately so more people can participate in work and business and so that we have workers, businesses and jobs for the future. It should come as no surprise that the Liberals have opposed all of our cost-of-living relief and want to wind it back. What do they want to wind back? Tax cuts, fee-free TAFE, a pay rise for early learning educators? If the coalition truly cared about fighting inflation and easing the cost of living, they would have actually supported our cost-of-living relief measures, but instead they voted for higher prices and higher inflation. The coalition have nothing but a negative plan. They are the 'noalition', and they simply cannot be in government. We have a positive plan, and we are absolutely supporting people right across my region and right across Australia. 15:44 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne This matter of public importance is really central to life in Australia at the moment, because the cost of living is really putting families and businesses under stress. Across the board, all the costs of living—health, food, education, housing, electricity, gas prices, transport costs—are up. There were 19,000 businesses, small businesses mainly, that went into insolvency in the last reporting period. We have to face the fact that the fundamentals of our economy are all out of balance. As the Reserve Bank explained, as clear as day, the government is spending too much money—taxpayers' money and borrowed money. But we're not getting anything to see for it. There is no productivity gain in all this spending. It's just playing catch up. We need to have policies that improve productivity. The latest tranche of legislation that came through in the last two sessions has set the scene for a huge lack of productivity, with pattern bargaining and widespread wage claims. Everyone supports a wage rise, but productivity needs to be improved to pay for it. Small businesses know this. That's why so many of them are now under stress: they're not getting the productivity. With the industrial relations changes coming down the barrel towards small businesses in my area, they will realise that the unions will be in command of how they run their businesses and that they will get much easier entry into their businesses and on pretty flimsy grounds. The reason for inflation is the fundamentals of what makes an efficient economy: small amounts of government spending, spending that leads to productivity growth, and tax rates and interest rates that mean the cost of money for businesses and individuals isn't too high. We've seen 12 interest rate rises since this government came to power. Australia's core inflation rate is the only one in our peer OECD countries that is going up. It's all Australian-grown inflation, whereas it's going down in other countries. Even though there have been some wage rises, real household disposable income and the number of things you can buy with your income have gone down. The latest disposable income figures show that, since the Labor government took over the Treasury benches and running government, real disposable income has fallen 7.8 per cent on a per capita basis. The force that is putting rent up and occupancy down is unbridled immigration. In the last annual figures, 638,000 new people were living in Australia. Former Labor Party governments have always been loose on immigration because each immigrant that comes here brings economic activity—we hope—and investment. With these current immigration settings, temporary migrants, who aren't highly skilled and who aren't bringing capital, aren't giving the lazy economic boost. When you look at the GDP figures, compared to the number of new people, there's negative growth for all this massive population shifting into our beautiful country. That's why vacancy rates were around four per cent when we were in government—and the latest vacancy rates across Australia average out at 1½ per cent. Mortgage rates have gone up enormously, such that, to service their mortgage, the average Australian uses 48 per cent of their disposable income. Many renters are paying 55 per cent of their income. (Time expired) 15:49 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence As a young bloke who grew up in Sunraysia in Mildura, I want to put on the record and clarify what the member for Mallee said earlier. The Labor Party does have your back. I will always make sure that that area has the attention of our relevant ministers, because it will always have a very close place in my heart, especially given the fact that I've still got quite a lot of family that live in the area. It's a bit rich when the member for Hume comes into this place and talks to the media, peddling the same old tired lines about inflation going up because of our government's spending. It's been a good couple of months since the Treasurer handed down this year's budget, so I'd like to hope that by now the member for Hume may have gotten through at least some of the papers. He might have a fighting chance if it were released as an audiobook. The premise itself is absurd—and I'll enjoy going into why later—but first I'd like the member for Hume to scroll through the several targeted and calibrated cost-of-living relief measures that our government introduced in the previous budget or, better yet, any of the previous budgets that the Albanese Labor government has handed down containing cost-of-living relief. I'll be waiting to hear what you would like to cut out of the mouths and hip pockets of hardworking Australian families, all in order to impact inflation minimally, if at all. Despite this, I'm sure that soon enough the member for Hume will come back into this place with the exact same topic, ready to have a crack at us again at MPI time. I guess to wipe out the shame of being around the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments in the cabinet room, you have to be a goldfish. Let me assist the member for Hume and, for that matter, anyone occupying that side of the chamber who might need a contemporary history lesson back from mid-2022. Those opposite, after losing the election, fronted up to the parliament with a trust deficit and a moral deficit, and handed over a budget deficit of around $78 billion. They ran a budget deficit that large despite inflation starting with a six at the time of the last election. I do understand that people come into this place from very diverse walks of life. Some are good with numbers and some are good at doing the numbers, but I can't say that many of us would consider the member for Hume to be either one of those. In short, a $78 billion budget deficit when inflation was speeding away at six per cent was probably not ideal. This was coupled with gross debt soaring towards a trillion dollars when they handed over the keys to us. They'll blame it solely on the pandemic, despite debt accumulating faster after the worst of it. But that also doesn't quite explain why they still ran deficits of that size. Years later, when inflation isn't even beginning to moderate, and after the Reserve Bank is about to start raising interest rates, the Albanese Labor government has reversed those deficit numbers all three times. In particular the budget deficit is back in the black. We have delivered back-to-back surpluses for the first time in nearly two decades not once but twice in a row, which is something those opposite couldn't achieve in nine years. This isn't some accounting trick or other tomfoolery, like when the member for Hume decided to amend the regulation to stop Australia families from knowing their power prices were going to go up under his watch with the DMO. While we are balancing the books, paying $80 billion less now in interest rate payments—larger than their last budget deficit—they still desperately want to cling on to a bit of hubris and think they are the responsible economic managers. We are cleaning up the mess those opposite left, sure, but more importantly we are providing help where it counts for Australians who need it the most. That's what you get when you have a government that actually knows how to manage an economy. The member for Hume can dodge accountability all he wants by coming into this place with the same MPI. We are more than happy to keep jogging his memory. Don't try to hoodwink working families into thinking that the cost-of-living relief our government is delivering is somehow bad for the economy, when those families are doing it tough and need that assistance the most. The opposition may have made 'back in the black' coffee mugs when they never deserved to, but what Australia doesn't deserve is for those opposite to keep treating them like mugs. 15:54 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes The Albanese Labor government has now been in power for more than two years, and I just want to remind this place what Anthony Albanese said on 17 March 2022, which was, 'A Labor government will lower the cost of living,' and 'a Labor government will deliver cheaper mortgages and cheaper rents.' I've just heard from a number of those across the other side, who have been espousing the economic credentials of this government. This government has failed in two key areas for Australians, and those are the cost of housing and the cost of everyday groceries. Under this government, for more than two years, we have seen real disposable income fall by 7.8 per cent. The cost of housing and rent has risen by 15 per cent. The cost of food has risen by more than 11 per cent. While inflation remains so high, interest rates must remain high. Why is it that inflation in our country is so high? When we compare ourselves with our trading partners, we see that their inflation rates are coming down. We now have higher inflation than every other advanced economy. We are the only G10 nation where core inflation is accelerating. The United Kingdom and Canada, for example, now have their inflation under control, and interest rates have fallen as a result. The inflation rate is clearly linked to this government's wasteful and irresponsible spending—$315 billion worth. Ms WARE 300123 I hear the interjections from the other side. That's $30,000 spent for each and every Australian household. There's not a household in my electorate that feels $30,000 a year better off. The Reserve Bank last week specifically linked the continuation of high interest rates to homegrown inflation. That is spending by Labor, federal and state governments. Australians, already heavily geared with large mortgages as well as business loans continue to pay for Labor's overspending and its homegrown inflation. Already, as a result of Labor's incompetence on the economy, Australian mortgage holders—and there are 22,000 of them in my electorate—are paying $24,000 more per year on their average mortgage than they were under the coalition government. That means that they've paid $35,000 under this government that they did not pay under the previous government. So much for cheaper mortgages. Inflation means that each month the take-home pays of Australian workers buy less than they did in the last month, and Australians know it. We've all, in this place, been back in our electorates, with everybody telling the same story that they are telling me in my electorate. They know that their mortgages, their rents, and the cost of their groceries are higher now under Labor than they were previously. If we look, for example, at some basic food and grocery items, the price of eggs is up by 22 per cent, and milk costs 19 per cent more. Prices of breads and cereals are up by more than 20 per cent, vegetable oil by 28 per cent, pet food by 16 per cent, chicken by 10 per cent and cheese by 23 per cent. If you want to get a takeaway meal, that's now costing 15 per cent more than it did over two years ago. This is what the Labor government has delivered for Australians in two years. Across my electorate of Hughes in Southern Sydney and beyond into neighbouring South Western Sydney, from Illawong to Ingleburn, from Bonnet Bay to Bangor to Bundeena, from Heathcote to Hammondville and from Moorebank to Macquarie Fields, Australians know it. They're paying more on their mortgages. They're paying more in rent, and they are paying far more each week for their groceries. Throughout the local government areas near me—Sutherland, Liverpool and Campbelltown—Australians are paying more. The Reserve Bank has linked the inflation rate, and the fact that Australians are paying more, to this government's overspending. The government's continuing claim that this is due to global circumstances has been flatly denied by the Reserve Bank this week. All Australians—those in my electorate and those throughout our country—are paying the price of Labor's gross overspending and mismanagement of the economy. Australians deserve far better than this Labor government. 15:59 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The fumbling and stumbling of the shadow Treasurer continues today with his cerebral incompetence on show not just for the people in this chamber but for the gallery, for those watching on at home and for the entire world, continuing in question time to admire the sound of his own voice rather than ask credible questions or provide any productive economic or fiscal policy to this chamber and this parliament. It really, really is a shame. Those that once prided themselves on economic management and fiscal responsibility now vacantly occupy those opposition benches, providing little substance, providing little direction and providing little credibility. They are not a viable alternative government for the Commonwealth of Australia. What did the Liberals leave us, an incoming federal Labor government, with? They left us a budget position that was more like a nuclear reactor meltdown, high inflation and wages that were going backwards. If the Leader of the Opposition and his loyal shadow Treasurer were to be in charge of this country, their unbridled liberal conservatism and right-wing populism would destroy this economy. Not only that but it would disadvantage millions of Australians right across our country, particularly in my home electorate of Robertson but also, I know, in many others, including their own. From the city to the bush, from north to south and from east to west, every Australian would be disadvantaged by what they consider to be responsible economic management. It gives me a headache. If the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 It would be a cerebral headache, wouldn't it? Dr REID 300126 Yes, that's right. If the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals are filthy about inflation now, then they must be livid with the position that they left this incoming Labor government in. Under the Liberals, inflation was going up faster than green grass through a goose. Not only that but it had a six in front of it, with an out-of-control net policy spend. The suggestion that our cost-of-living relief for Australians is the primary driver of prices in a $2.6 trillion economy is absolutely absurd. Our net policy spend in 2023-24 is small in comparison to the size of our $2.6 trillion economy. What we have done is strike the right balance between our most recent budget, which provides assistance to millions of Australians, and the two that came before it. Our cost-of-living relief is helping Australians right across this country. So, for the benefit of the opposition, because I know they don't listen—this is, what, the 50th time that we've had this MPI—our cost-of-living relief is helping Australians right across the board. Let's go through a few of those cost-of-living measures that are helping Australians. We're freezing the cost of PBS listed medications, which is making sure that Australians can receive the medications that they need so their chronic illnesses aren't exacerbated and they don't end up in our emergency departments. Let's talk about our bulk-billed urgent care clinics. If you're too sick for the GP and not sick enough for the emergency department, you now have a place to go. The Labor Party in this country has created not only a new medical speciality but a new model of care that is known the world over but is now right here on the shores of Australia because of this Albanese Labor government. Let's talk about energy bill relief, which is not just for households and not just for people but also for small businesses. This is another way that this federal Labor government is backing our business community. Small businesses are the backbone of this country. I know because my parents are small-business owners. They are the backbone of this country, and they employ a significant number of people. Let's also talk about the big one. Let's talk about a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. That is for tens of thousands of people in the electorate of Robertson. That is for millions of people across Australia. This is just a short list of the cost-of-living measures that this federal Labor government is providing to Australians, and we will continue to serve the people as we have always done. 16:04 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook The member for Robertson just spent four of his five minutes talking about the opposition. It's not hard to understand why, because there's not much that is positive to talk about, though in the one minute he did start talking about the government and its policies he talked about energy bill relief, without any hint of irony as well. There he was, high-fiving and celebrating a $300 subsidy—the gall. Mr KENNEDY 267506 The government promised $275 of bill relief. Prices in my electorate have gone up by up to $1,000, yet there you are smiling and being smarmy. You're celebrating a $300 subsidy when prices are up by $1,000. In what world do you think that's positive? There you are high-fiving and celebrating tax cuts when the average Australian cannot make ends meet. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Can I just remind the member for Cook to address his remarks through the Speaker. Mr KENNEDY 267506 Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member is talking about these things, celebrating them, and I'm left confused and my electorate's left confused. Only last week I was talking to a single mum at St Vincent's Gymea who is facing homelessness. She's not celebrating these tax cuts. She's not celebrating this energy relief. These people are hurting. They're not laughing, smiling and talking about how good a budget surplus is. She's worried about where her and her disabled son are going to live. I know a teacher looking at moving out of New South Wales to WA. I'd ask the member for Robertson to explain to the teacher in Cronulla who can't afford to buy a house why they need to be looking at moving over a five-hour flight away from the rest of their family. It's because they cannot afford to buy a house or pay the rent. They're not celebrating that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr KENNEDY 267506 The member for Robertson keeps interjecting, probably wanting to celebrate his energy subsidy, tax cuts and the like, but he's clearly not listening. He's not listening to his constituents. I'm sure his constituents in Robertson would be telling him that. Australia is doing worse than all other G10 countries. Why does Australia have higher inflation than the other G10 countries? I invite the next member from the government to explain to me why Australia's inflation is higher than in every other G10 country? That question's been asked a lot, but I still haven't heard an answer. I'm genuinely curious. I'm also genuinely curious why they think the RBA is saying Australia is going to have higher inflation for longer. What is the answer to that? I'd also like the explanation for why independent economist after independent economist is blaming public spending for contributing to inflation, and yet the government don't want to take any ownership of it. Shane Oliver said the RBA's job would be a lot easier if it weren't for government spending. Warwick McKibbin is also saying the government's policies are adding to inflation. We have had independent economist after independent economist agree with this. Please explain this to me and to the rest of Australia. After two years of Labor stewardship, Australians are being crushed by inflation and they are in a per capita recession. What does that mean? Over the last year, Australian families have been getting poorer. Forty-nine per cent of Australians have gone cold this winter due to fears of higher electricity prices. They've gone cold. They've decided not to heat their houses just to save money. They're not high-fiving about a one-off $300 subsidy that's disappearing into the ether. It's not surprising that Labor believes the answer to higher electricity prices and higher childcare costs is more subsidies and more government. On this side of the House, we believe the answer to higher inflation is lower prices. It's lower prices from actually investing in supply, not pulling it off early. It's about not taking away energy supply but keeping it there and investing in more and more energy supply. It's not about subsidising child care. It's about more childcare centres to lower the prices. What is the result of these one-off subsidies? Net disposable income per capita has fallen 7½ per cent. 'What would the Liberals do?' I hear them ask on the other side. A coalition government would focus on increasing supply of energy. We wouldn't be closing down energy supply; we'd be adding to it. This Labor government is under the impression that it's small-target, subsidy-driven set of policies is going make it more electable. The Australian population can see through it. We would also cut wasteful spending. Labor has spent $30,000 for the average household. I can tell you that households in my electorate of Cook and, I'm sure, in the electorate of Robertson do not feel $30,000 better off under this government. 16:09 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Whilst those opposite engage in blatant politicking on the serious issue of Australians doing it tough and oppose initiatives to support average Aussies, this government is taking measured and effective steps to help Australians struggling whilst balancing them against the current global inflationary environment. I know the Treasurer and finance ministers are working incredibly hard to maintain this balance and make sure Australians receive real and tangible help with their household budgets. Tackling inflation is a really tough challenge. There's no magic wand to fix it, as the Liberals know full well. Inflation at the time of the last election was roughly double what it is now. Labor has halved it. We know CPI indicators are volatile, but let me tell you: inflation would be even higher if it weren't for Labor's cost-of-living relief—and a surplus. I hear every day from my constituents in Dunkley that they are struggling with their household budgets. I hear it at my electorate office, street stalls and doorknocks. But they also know that inflation is due to serious global factors. They're much smarter than the Liberals give them credit for. Labor is listening and we are acting. That's why we have designed cost-of-living measures that deliver for those doing it tough and take into consideration inflationary pressures. We are taking steps for responsible cost-of-living relief while keeping spending under control. And the opposition needs to know that we do need to provide relief. We cannot deprive Australians of help, as they, the opposition, would have it. That's why we've delivered cheaper medicines, investing in $4 billion to freeze the PBS co-payment for five years and are adding more medicines to the PBS register. In Dunkley, residents have so far saved over $2.2 million because of this government's cheaper medicine policies. Those doing it toughest, like pensioners and concession card holders, won't pay more than $7.70 for their PBS medications. There is also $300 in energy relief for every household and $325 for every small business. The primary focus of our economic plan and budget is to ease pressure on Australians and put downward pressure on inflation, and power bill relief does both. Our cheaper childcare reforms are delivering real cost-of-living relief to Australian families. This is good for children, good for families, good for workers, good for Australia. And more than three million Australians with a student loan will benefit from a capped HELP indexation rate, with $3 billion in student debt being wiped. There are tax cuts for every Australian; 87,000 taxpayers from Dunkley will benefit and have benefited from this. For those doing it really tough, there is a 10 per cent increase to maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance, benefitting close to one million households across Australia. This will benefit nearly 7,000 households in Dunkley. These are just some of the many cost-of-living measures. The Labor government has a strategy that is responsible and fair and is making a positive difference. This means Australians get to earn more and keep more of what they earn. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The discussion is now concluded. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 42 Report 42 16:13 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 6 of 2024. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights's sixth scrutiny report of 2024, which was tabled out of session on 24 July 2024. In this report, the committee has considered 22 new bills and 143 new legislative instruments and has substantively commented on one new bill and one new instrument and concluded examination of one instrument. In particular, the committee has considered the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. This provides that a person commits an offence if they engage in certain conduct with respect to the Veterans' Review Board, including if they interrupt proceedings or create a disturbance near where the board is sitting. The committee considers that, while it's important to ensure the effective operation of the board, it is not clear that the offences pursue an objective that is necessary and addresses a pressing and substantial concern. The committee considers there to be a risk that the offences are framed so broadly that they may criminalise legitimate conduct, such as peaceful protest. The committee therefore considers that the offences risk disproportionately limiting the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and has recommended amendments to assist with the proportionality. The committee has also commented on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) (Criminal Law-Enforcement Agency—Act Integrity Commission) Declaration 2024. This declares the ACT Integrity Commission to be a criminal law enforcement agency and each staff member of the commission to be officers for the purposes of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. This authorises the commission to access stored communications via a warrant and telecommunications data, including both the contents of a communication and information about a communication. This limits the right to privacy. The committee considers that, while accessing this data to identify and investigate alleged corruption would likely be a legitimate objective, it is not clear that there is a pressing and substantial concern that warrants the commission having direct access to the data rather than accessing it via police. The committee considers that the measure is broadly framed and that the accompanying safeguards are not sufficient. As such, there is a significant risk that the measure does not constitute a permissible limitation on the right to privacy. The committee has recommended that the declaration be amended to specify only those staff members who require access to telecommunications data to be officers for the purposes of the act. Finally, the committee has concluded its examination of the Migration (Code of Behaviour for Public Interest Criterion 4022) Instrument (LIN 24/031) 2024. This requires certain visa holders to sign an enforceable code of behaviour where breach of the code could lead to immigration detention or a reduction in social security benefits. The committee considers that it is not clear that the code satisfies the quality of law test or pursues a legitimate objective, noting that the code is drafted in vague terms and that it has not been demonstrated that visa holders subject to the code present a particular risk to community safety. The committee considers that questions remain as to whether the code is rationally connected and proportionate to the stated objective. The code has not been enforced in practice, and there are other enforcement powers available under the Migration Act. As such, the committee considers there to be a risk that the code impermissibly limits multiple human rights. The committee notes that this code is currently being reviewed and has recommended that this review closely consider the committee's comments and that any enforcement of the code considers the committee's concerns and human rights implications of the instrument. I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely, and, with these comments, I thank the secretariat, I thank the members of the committee and I commend the Human rights scrutiny report: report 6 of 2024 to the House. BILLS 43 BILLS Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 43

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024

Second Reading 43 16:17 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In addressing the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, which has been referred to in the media as the 'ghost universities bill', I remind the House, as I said when I was speaking earlier in the day on this matter, that the number of people coming into Australia through the student visas is of the order of 400,000 or 500,000 a year. Now, I find these figures pretty hard to believe—that it's that much—but those are the official figures given to me by the departments. There are another 350,000 people coming in on various visas, including the immigration visa. That's nearly a million people a year coming into Australia. Over a period of 10 or 12 years, if these people have children, and a lot of them have a lot of children, these people will be a majority in this country. Do they come from countries with democracy? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with rule of law? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with Christianity? No. When I say Christianity, I'm not necessarily referring to belief in a god, but I am referring to the underlying principle of Western democracies—that you have a responsibility to your fellow man and you have a responsibility to make the world a better place. That is the essence of Jesus Christ's message that underpins the Magna Carta which underpins most of our laws and was written by the Archbishop Langton, the head of the Christian church in England at the time. Let me return to the issue at hand. No Christianity, no industrial awards, no democracy and no rule of law. What the hell do you think our country is going to look like if you bring 10 or 15 million of these people into this country? Go down any time of the day or night to a takeaway food place here in Canberra or a late-night pharmacy or any other thing here in Canberra, and see where those people come from. I've even asked them where they come from. For those who interpret my remarks as being anti-Muslim, I am on record on numerous occasions praising our neighbours, the people of Indonesia. They've been wonderful neighbours to us, much better neighbours than we've been to them. I've found them marvellous people. I've had a lot of interface with them with live cattle issues and I couldn't speak more highly of them. They strike me as very Christian people! They have respect for other people and they have a desire to make the world peaceful and a better place to live in. I'm not talking about them. But there is a group from the Middle East, and I most certainly make no apologies for talking about them. Having said those things, one of the most senior people in the universities councils of Australia told me 20 years ago that if you stop the universities from being visa shops, then you will close half the universities in Australia. The government figures are so doctored up they are just a joke. The exports and imports figures are now doctored up with sale of student visas. That is regarded as income for Australia! It's not; it's a round robin. They come here, they stay here, they get a job driving taxis or after hours whatever, and they take the job off an Australian. So you get paid on money they've taken off an Australian that had the job before and was probably working to an arbitrated wage. A lot of these newcomers are not working to an arbitrated wage. There are numerous examples in history where people have let people into their country. You can start right back with the Vandals being allowed into the Roman Empire and the next thing they were sacking Rome itself. I can give a thousand other examples for those of us who read history books. I quoted Winston Churchill, and it doesn't hurt to quote him again, when he said, 'Those that do not understand and know their history will be doomed to once again to suffer that history.' When Hitler invaded Russia, Churchill chortled and said, 'Mr Hitler does not know his history!' He was dead right. Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia, and the Russians kept running away until he was exhausted and starving, half of his troops dead by disease and trying to chase the Russians down. Then Napoleon did exactly the same thing. He went in there with half a million troops and came out with 50,000 troops. You may even quote Wellington in Spain. If you let the Vandals in, don't complain to me when they sacked and raped and murdered half the population of Rome because they weren't given half of the land ownership of Italy. They felt they should be given land grants over a fair proportion of Italy. You can start their and go to numerous examples of this. Israel itself is a very good example. It was totally Jewish. Then in 1385, Ibn Khaldun—I think was the name of the historian—said he was very surprised to find that Jerusalem was still predominantly Christian and Palestine was still predominantly Christian. Well, there were no Christians there. Within 200 years, there were no Christians there at all. They let people in. They didn't defend their borders and protect their borders. They let people in, and they were booted out, and they became the Jewish diaspora. For those people that want an example of what happens, Constantinople was the centre of the Christian religion and the centre of the Roman Empire, and now there is hardly a Christian living in that area of the world. Most certainly, in Constantinople you won't find any Christians. Well, you let the people in. You let them in continuously. You did not defend and protect your borders, and then you paid the price. And the price is very, very high indeed. We have pretty close to a million people a year coming in on student visas that are supposed to go home. Earlier today, I quoted a case when I got in a taxi and asked the taxi driver a little bit sneakily, 'What subject are you doing at university this year?' He said, 'Hospitality.' I think if I asked the question a different way, he might have been a bit sneaky, but I asked it that way, and he said, 'Hospitality.' He looked to me to be about 50 years old, and he had come in as a very young man to Australia. I mean, quite frankly, if you get in on a student visa, you don't go home. I also quoted earlier today the case of a family who are lovely people. They're an asset to Australia, in my opinion. But, all the same, I said, 'What visa did you come in on?' She said: 'Oh, I just came in on a student visa. They're really easy to get. Anyone who wants to come to Australia just gets a student visa.' I said, 'What about your family?' She said, 'Oh, they come in on the student visa.' There were six people in that family. These people are great assets to Australia, but a lot of these people are anything but assets to Australia. They sit in a big city ghetto. They don't move. They have no desire, it would appear to me, to become part of Australia now or in the future, and that is not the Australian way. My brother, who I greatly respect, said: 'They talk about multiculturalism. This country has never been multicultural—never. It was always a monocultural country.' These people have run around with this mouthpiece, and we've all been scared, including me, of it being said that I was against multiculturalism. I never used the word when I was the minister responsible in the state parliament, and I won't use it in the future. We want our people to be Australians, and that is not happening. (Time expired) 16:27 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin The government tells us that it has introduced the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 to improve the quality, integrity and sustainable growth of Australia's international education sector, and I support the parts of the bill that do that. The reason I cannot support this bill in its entirety, however, is that it goes way beyond this intention, and I can't find any legitimate justification for why it does so. The bill gives the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university. As far as I can see, this power is not about sustainable growth of the sector; it's in response to our domestic housing crisis. Reducing the number of international students will theoretically free up some accommodation. I am concerned that these measures will do very little to free up housing and instead will have grave ramifications for Australia's international reputation and an important export industry. Australia has a long and proud history of international education. From way back in 1950, when the Colombo plan was set up to advance international relations, it was decided that one of the best ways to build relationships and influence was by bringing students from Asia-Pacific to study in Australia. In the 1960s, Australian universities started working offshore, assisting universities and teaching colleges in nearby countries to help develop curricula and research labs. Then in 1986 the Australian government allowed universities to accept full-time fee-paying international students to come to Australia to study, which coincidentally—or not—was about the same time that higher education stopped being free for Australian students. The then Minister for Employment, Education and Training saw an opportunity and an eager and willing market of international students to establish university education as an Australian export industry. Fast-forward to today, and education services are our fourth-largest export, after iron ore, coal and gas. However, unlike with material commodities such as iron ore and coal, increasing education export means more people arriving in Australia, which means an increase in the net overseas migration number. In the midst of a housing crisis, this doesn't play well politically. That brings me to the detail of the bill in front of us. The government says it needs to determine the appropriate settings for the size, shape and focus of the international education sector, taking into account Australia's broader economic and social considerations. The government says it has introduced this bill to improve the quality of the international education sector, to improve the integrity of the sector and to improve the sustainable growth of the sector. I want to examine how these three objectives are addressed. The bill uses schedules 1 to 6 to address concerns about whether education agents and providers are legitimate. It sets out more regulations to ensure that private education providers are providing a genuine education service. I support these measures as a response to problems within the international education sector. I've heard many stories about dodgy colleges, inadequate student preparation, student poverty and student exploitation. The proliferation of private education providers that take advantage of international students to make a profit has to stop, and I think stronger regulation of the system is needed. These parts seem to fulfil the first and second objectives of the bill about improving the quality and integrity of international education providers. I'm also pleased that parts 1 to 6 seem to respond to issues identified in the Nixon review and the government's migration strategy, which, amongst other things, recommend addressing integrity issues within the international education sector and assisting regulators as they address unscrupulous provider behaviour through further legislative changes. There's clear evidence for why these measures are needed, and the legislation responds to recommendations from a comprehensive review. If this bill was just about parts 1 to 6, I'd be voting to pass it today. But it is parts 7 and 8 of the bill that are problematic. These measures introduce new ministerial powers to regulate the provision of education to overseas students by giving the minister the ability to set course and university caps for international students. I understand the concerns that a booming international student sector can result in dodgy courses and a pay-for-degree mentality. And I absolutely think we need more checks and balances to ensure that our university degrees are quality courses. But limiting numbers doesn't solve that, in which case: is this the government's response to the objective of sustainable growth? I looked for external sources to try to work out the reasons behind these measures. The explanatory memorandum points to the 2024 Australian Universities Accord, the Strategic Framework and the prebudget government announcements as background to the government's decision to limit international student enrolment numbers. But, on closer reading, the accord notes only the financial concerns about capping international students. The strategic framework sets out the concern that unmanaged growth in international education, with a rise in integrity issues, might threaten Australia's reputation, which seems to be the reason for this heavy-handed approach that is being proposed. I'm not clear how the strategic framework results in providing the minister with these powers. Perhaps the answer is in the bill. I note that when setting course-by-course enrolments for each university the minister will take into account the relevance of courses to Australia's skills needs and the supply of purpose-built student accommodation available to both domestic and international students. This suggests that the real purpose of the measure is to make sure we're getting the right skills taught in Australia and that students aren't contributing to domestic housing pressures. But is this bill the right way to achieve those two purposes? The need for international students to study courses that respond to Australia's skills needs seems nonsensical, given that 84 per cent of international students return to their home country at the end of their studies. It also doesn't take into account the need for Australian courses like business or tech degrees to respond to skills shortages in countries of origin. People who will spend most of their working lives in non-Australian labour markets should be free to take courses that reflect their own interests and career plans. It's arrogant to think that Australia can dictate what products its international education customers will buy on the basis of what Australia needs, not on what these customers want. They'll surely go elsewhere. If the purpose of this section is to allow international students to remain in Australia only if they've completed a course relevant to Australia's skills needs then surely this can be engineered by using visa conditions and migration laws. Far more concerning, however, is how this bill is conflating Australia's housing crisis with the arrival of international students. Let's be clear: the housing crisis has not been caused by international students. As we've discussed time and time again in this House, this is a problem formed over decades of policy choices, and we need new, bold policy decisions to ensure Australians can afford to own a house. Reducing international student arrivals is not one of these bold decisions. A Property Council report has shown that international students make up only four per cent of the rental market and, unlike families, most students prefer to live in student accommodation and apartments in CBDs and close to universities. As already stated, 84 per cent of international students go home at the end of their course. Yet both the government and the opposition have attributed housing stress to the post-pandemic surge of international students. In reality, student numbers are currently at about 786,000. That's pretty close to the pre-pandemic levels of around 756,000 in 2019. There may have been a surge from the very low pandemic numbers, but we're pretty much back on track in relation to pre-pandemic enrolments. I worry that this short-term attempt to reduce housing stress will have much bigger long-term ramifications for the Australian international education sector. First, there are economic ramifications. The international education market has been extremely profitable for Australia. According to the Department of Education, in 2022-23, international education was worth $36 billion to the Australian economy. Universities Australia was slightly more generous in their calibrations, attributing 48 billion in export dollars in 2023. International students accounted for almost a quarter of all GDP growth over the year to March 2024 and employed more than 200,000 people. It's also worth considering that the powers the bill proposes would allow the minister to shut down significant parts of the international education sector with little or no warning. These powers represent incredible levels of state control over an export market, powers that would put education providers at legal and financial peril without recourse. Second, there are long-term ramifications in relation to our research and development capabilities. Universities now rely on income generated by international students to supplement reduced government funding and an increase in domestic student numbers. International student fees are used to fund university infrastructure and research and development. In 2022, revenue from international student fees across Australia's 41 universities made up nearly 25 per cent of total university revenue. More than half of the $12 billion the universities invest in research each year is funded by international student fees. The government could decide to increase public funding to you at universities, which I would support as a long-term investment in our future prosperity. But, if this is not going to happen, then capping income from international students will affect Australia's ability to invest in essential research and development. Finally, there are ramifications for our international reputation. In a submission to the committee on this bill, the Business Council of Australia's second recommendation was: The Government recognise the role of international students in enhancing Australia's reputation and fostering relations within the region. Australia should be proud of its international education sector, which has evolved into a globally competitive export. It's an international market, but the commodity is not a rock or some gas; it's services—and services mean people. Changing the rules will affect people's lives, and this means relationships on personal, diplomatic and business levels. If we make this change, it won't be easy to change back. It will change global perceptions of Australia as a study destination. Education is a globally competitive market. Creating this level of uncertainty will mean students will choose to study their chosen course in Canada, the US or New Zealand—not a course that Australia has chosen at a regional university. So what needs to change? If the government is serious about sustainable growth for universities, it should go back to the drawing board, or, in this case, the Universities Accord, and set caps via mission based compacts between individual universities and the Department of Education. If the government wants to reduce net overseas migration, it should use the migration and visa system to achieve this aim rather than inserting itself into the university sector. And if the government wants to address the housing crisis it needs to introduce measures that increase housing supply, including incentivising states to build more houses. I've mentioned my concern that this new ministerial power is an overreach. Capping international enrolments takes another step away from a rules driven higher education system in which students and education providers can make decisions based on known legal criteria. The introduction of caps will require legislation, but the specific caps will be decided administratively. International education has always been subject to changing migration policy, but this bill takes it further, to allow politicians and bureaucrats to interfere in the specific decisions of students and universities. This distorts the free market in a way that undermines certainty for universities and students, may deliver courses for which there is no demand, limit courses for which there is demand and make Australia a less desirable study location. Because of my concern with the application of parts 7 and 8, I'll be moving an amendment to have these parts removed from the bill. Without these parts, this is a perfectly sensible piece of legislation that will improve the integrity of our higher education sector. If this amendment is not accepted, pragmatically, I've also proposed an amendment to the timing of the implementation of the bill. As it stands, it allows the minister to issue an instrument in relation to caps any time before 31 December this year for 2025 enrolments. This is way too late and shows no understanding of how the international education market works. Most universities report that the international student enrolment process can take more than 18 months. Leaving students hanging until the eleventh hour will not only create uncertainty for 2025 but make Australia less attractive in the following years. Agents are likely to promote countries that can provide certainty sooner. For similar reasons, I'll also be proposing an amendment to delay the implementation date from 2025 to 2026, so that government can undertake appropriate stakeholder engagement, avoid undermining the higher education market with uncertainty, and plan and communicate caps appropriately. In conclusion, I'm all for parts 1 to 6 of the bill, to restore integrity in the higher education sector and address unscrupulous behaviour. But parts 7 and 8, imposing course-level caps for international students at each university or education provider, are an overreach. This will undermine the sector, could ruin our reputation and could distort a flourishing market. The timing is also impractical. It looks like a poorly thought out, knee jerk reaction to current housing pressures, which will not solve the problem anyway, and could create a whole new suite of other problems. For these reasons, without appropriate amendments, I will not be supporting this bill. 16:42 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank members for their contribution to this debate. As I said when I introduced the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, this is an important piece of legislation, because international education is important to Australia. It's our fourth biggest export; the biggest that we don't dig out of the ground. And it is no ordinary export. It not only makes us money; it makes us friends: those graduates who, when they go home, take back home with them a love and affection for our country—something that they carry in their hearts, in their lives and in their careers. In the world that we live in, you can't put a value on that. That's why it's important that we protect international education's integrity and quality, and that we ensure that it can grow sustainably over time. This bill does both of those things. It addresses the issues that the Parkinson and Nixon reviews and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade have singled out for urgent action. The Parkinson review told us that some institutions, driven only by profit, sell student visas to students who only want to work, not study. The Nixon review made the serious point that: … there can be much profit to gain for those who choose to engage in the provision of immigration assistance that aids illegal sex work, human trafficking, modern slavery and money laundering. The Nixon report told us that there are some providers colluding with agents to funnel students into criminal activities and agents misleading international students with false advice about their courses and their living and working conditions, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. The actions of these unscrupulous providers damage the excellent reputation of this important sector that overwhelmingly does fantastic work. This bill will protect the sector and students from these bad actors. It will improve the integrity and quality of the education agent system by strengthening the fit and proper requirements. It also lays the foundation to ban commissions for onshore transfers. It also increases transparency and allows providers to make better-informed decisions about which international education agents they engage with. It also strengthens controls over the registration of providers and the courses they offer—for example, stopping ghost colleges, fronts that sit empty while students use their visa to work. It also helps to combat abuses in the darkest corners of the sector—human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices. In short, we are shutting out those who might try to make a quick buck off our reputation as a place to get a great education. That's the first objective of this bill. The second objective is to help set up international education for sustainable growth over the long term. We have around 10 per cent more international students in our universities today than we did before the pandemic and around 45 per cent more international students in our vocational institutions. We need to manage the sector's growth in a way that benefits Australia and our institutions whilst maintaining the sector's social licence. That includes encouraging universities to create new supply of student accommodation to benefit both domestic and international students as part of their future growth. At the moment, growth in international student numbers is essentially unregulated. What this bill does is allow for the management of the number of international students a provider can enrol at a provider level, a course level or both. It also allows for the limitation of courses with systemic quality issues or limited value to Australia's critical skills need or where it is in the public interest to do so. Through the government's International Education and Skills Strategic Framework, we will implement measures to improve the experience of students. As I said when I introduced this bill, I'm serious about working with the sector to get these reforms right. I've been working closely with the Council for International Education to shape these reforms. My department has led an extensive consultation process since May of this year, with more than 150 stakeholders and more than 115 written submissions. In June, I spoke to the Parliamentary Friends of International Education here in this building and I talked about putting in place better levers to shape the sector and give it the kind of certainty that it needs—the kind of certainty that many stakeholders have called for throughout this consultation process, to plan for the future in a sustainable way. That's what this part of the bill is all about—sustainable growth and certainty for the sector, and maximising the value of international education for all Australians. I acknowledge in particular members of the crossbench who have engaged with me and my office on this bill. I note the amendments suggested by the member for Kooyong to require a review, to take place in 2026, of the provisions that allow me to set limits, and I am pleased to say that the government is in a position to support that amendment now. I also note the amendments proposed by the member for Curtin, the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney and the member for Warringah. I know that it is an important issue and that this is an important piece of legislation for them. Although the government is not in a position to support their amendments at this time, I have discussed with a number of members of the crossbench my intention to explore these further as the Senate inquiry progresses and the bill moves to the Senate. As I said when I introduced this bill, the government will give serious consideration to any amendment that will improve it. I also reiterate the government's commitment to continue consulting with the sector on these reforms, and I look forward to the work of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee in their inquiry which is currently underway. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:52]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

55 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 88 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. 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. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. 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. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:58 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The House divided. [16:58]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

80 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. 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. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. 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. Littleproud, D. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 50 17:04 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 6 to 10), omit the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5. (2) Schedule 1, item 46, page 23 (lines 16 to 26), omit the item, substitute: 46 Section 15A (after the paragraph beginning "Division 1 contains") Insert: The Minister may determine under Division 1AA a limit (called the total enrolment limit) on the number of overseas students that may be enrolled in all courses provided by a provider in a year. A provider must not exceed its total enrolment limit for a year. (3) Schedule 1, item 47, page 29 (line 11) to page 34 (line 8), omit Subdivision C. (4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 34 (lines 9 to 18), omit the item, substitute: 48 Section 83A (after the paragraph beginning "The ESOS agency") Insert: Division 1AA provides for automatic suspension of a provider's registration for all courses in relation to a year if the provider exceeds its total enrolment limit for the year. (5) Schedule 1, item 49, page 36 (line 4) to page 37 (line 20), omit section 96A. (6) Schedule 1, item 50, page 37 (table item 13), omit the table item. (7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 38 (line 5), omit "or 96A(6)". (8) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 3 to 33), omit subitems (4) and (5). I rise to speak to the amendments as circulated. As I said in my second reading speech, while many in North Sydney would support efforts to improve the quality, integrity and sustainability of our tertiary and advanced education sector, we're concerned this piece of legislation conflates a variety of issues and uses them to confer unprecedented powers on both the current and future education ministers. Importantly, under the guise of fixing the integrity of the international students sector, we're concerned government overreach, as seen in this bill, risks undermining what is currently the second most profitable export sector in our economy. Specifically, the ministerial power to introduce student caps at the course level is unprecedented, with no other major export industry currently subject to such extraordinary micro-level powers. The amendment I'm moving seeks to remove the ministerial power to set caps at the course level, instead allowing for caps at the provider level only. The reason I believe this amendment is required is that ministerial intervention at the course level is a dangerous overreach that would have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice. To be clear, universities already deliver education under strict and mature regulatory and funding arrangements. And because they're increasingly asked to deliver graduates in line with Australia's skills needs, based on advice from agencies including Jobs and Skills Australia, a ministerial intervention at the course level could have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice. Capping international student numbers altogether is one thing; setting them with respect to specific courses is another. It not only poses a serious threat to the operation of a vital sector; it sends a message of lust—I'm sorry, it sends a message of lack of trust in a free market that is the direct result of consecutive governments stepping back from funding. And I'm sure there are plenty of other markets lusting after our education sector! Ultimately, surely the question we must ask is: why would we think, as much as we trust this education minister, that any education minister is best placed to make decisions like these? The fact there is no requirement for the minister to consult before issuing a notice to limit international students at a particular institution is also concerning. In addition to this, the rushed nature of these changes means that education providers are stepping into them blindly. Providers could soon negotiate international student caps on courses without even knowing what the guidelines, regulations or skills priorities will be and with no line of sight over the courses that may be subject to caps. A large university in my electorate informed me that they have a major concern that these new measures have been introduced with little warning and, to date, little consultation, with the only effort they've seen coming just a few days before the bill was introduced to parliament. The government says they're committed to working closely with the sector, yet the fact the sector is concerned about the lack of consultation to date does not bode well. Education providers tell me that managing international student enrolment numbers at a course level for approximately 1,400 higher education institutions will create an immense administrative burden for both the government and universities. They have explained how caps would limit student choice, which could be detrimental to the entire sector. Ultimately, our tertiary education providers operate in a global market and demand driven system, underpinned by student choice. Restrictions placed on student choice risk reputational damage and undermine the decades of work that both the sector and the consecutive governments have done to establish Australia as a world-class provider of international education. It's clear there's more work to do on this legislation to ensure the right settings are in place to bring certainty, stability and growth to this critically important sector. Rather than let the major parties use this bill to target international students in a bid to slash migration in what can only be seen as a poll-driven war on the cost of living and housing, we have to do what's right by the sector. The future of this sector, our economic productivity and our society more broadly require us to take the passing of this legislation seriously. I commend this amendment to the House as a way of delivering a more targeted approach with measured ministerial powers rather than the extraordinary overreach currently in the bill. 17:09 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith While there are a number of amendments from the crossbench to this bill that the Greens will be supporting, including this one, and that do improve the bill somewhat, for us this remains a terrible bill. We want to outline that the Greens oppose international student caps remaining in the bill in any form. Capping international student numbers is bad policy and it makes a dishonest conflation between international students, migration and the housing and cost-of-living crises. This will do nothing to fix our education policy or university sector or to help deal with the housing or cost-of-living crises. 17:10 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing forward this amendment. She's right: trust is important. And she raises an important issue here about the structure and operation of this bill specifically as it relates to courses. It's something about which I'm having discussions with stakeholders, both universities and those outside the university sector, at the moment. It's been part of the discussions that have been taking place since I introduced the bill in May of this year. It's important that we get this right. That's why that consultation is important. I am also looking forward to seeing what the Senate Education and Employment Committee has to say in its recommendations in response to some of the issues you have raised in your contribution just then. So, whilst we're not in a position to support the amendment today, I am looking forward to continuing that work with the sector, which I just pointed to, and with the crossbench, both here in the House and in the Senate, in the weeks ahead. 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. [17:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

14 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 46 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Garland, C. M. L. Giles, A. J. Gillespie, D. A. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:18 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I move: (1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert: 4 Sunsetting of Parts 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 (1) Despite item 53 of Schedule 1, the amendments made by Part 7 of Schedule 1 do not apply in relation to the 2027 calendar year and later calendar years. (2) Despite item 56 of Schedule 1, the amendments made by Part 8 of Schedule 1 cease to apply after the end of the 2-year period starting at the commencement of that Part. I am yet to be convinced that the volume of foreign students coming to Australia is the core of the problem that the government is trying to solve here, that they are the primary cause of the housing and rental crises currently besetting our country and causing so much hardship to so many. Nor am I convinced that, even if that is a major problem, this legislation is the way to solve it. Overseas student numbers collapsed during COVID, understandably, and now it seems to me that we're seeing a temporary spike as numbers recover. In the normal course of events, vice chancellors have suggested to me that it may well be numbers return to normal in a very short period. So if there is a perceived and temporary issue with the number of people entering the country, there's an easy fix, which is to make sure that the legislation operates only for a limited period. As I said in my second reading speech, I have been in discussions with the minister to add a sunset clause to the legislation to allow it to lapse once it has achieved the government's short-term goal. Unfortunately, the government has decided not to support this amendment despite support from the tertiary sector. The minister's advisers say they sympathise with the concept but it's too difficult to implement. As it stands, the legislation grounds extraordinary powers to the minister—for example, to impose total enrolment limits by legislative instrument and to impose total enrolment limits by notice to the provider. Then there's the real sledgehammer—additional provisions to allow the minister to impose enrolment limits on individual courses by legislative instrument or by notice to the provider. As it stands, the legislation grants extraordinary powers to the minister, for example, to impose total enrolment limits by legislative instrument and to impose total enrolment limits by notice to the provider. Then—the real sledgehammer—there are additional provisions to allow the minister to impose enrolment limits on individual courses by legislative instrument or by notice to the provider. This is just too much power in the hands of one minister, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment just proposed by my colleague the member for North Syndey to remove that provision. Meanwhile, I'm offering a sunset clause of two years that would enable the government to get over what it sees as an immediate but one-off problem. It would also give the sector certainty that the extraordinary powers granted to the minister would not be used in unacceptable ways by a future incumbent. This parliament simply should not leave such overwhelming powers in the hands of one person given its potential impact on what has been an Australian success story. Control over individual courses ought to be the responsibility of the individual institutions and not imposed by a minister. We have already seen the damage done by the previous government with its job-ready program, designed to make some university courses less attractive than others by, for instance, more than doubling student contributions to a three-year humanities degree, from $20,000 to more than $43,000—an increase of 113 per cent. Despite this price signal, Australia's largest universities earlier this year reported a jump in applications for arts degrees, leading to higher enrolments. It is this sort of meddling, therefore, that has already proved counterproductive. The government acknowledged to me that it might have been a different story if the Australian tertiary education authority had already been up and running. I offered suggestions to address this conundrum. They were considered but rejected. Perhaps it would have been the case that, had the government seen its way clearly, the presence of my amendment might have given them cause to get a wriggle on and actually see the authority established. I do suspect that, if the minister had been the ultimate decision-maker, a sunset clause would have seen the light of day—to mix the metaphor. I would say that not all universities are against this legislation. I acknowledge that, but vice-chancellors from the universities of Monash and Melbourne—many Goldstein students attend those—who I have met with personally entirely disagree with it. I certainly do not want to be involved in creating a situation where students in Goldstein cannot get a place at a university anywhere near where they live because of arbitrary caps imposed under this legislation. I commend the amendment to the House. 17:22 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Goldstein for her contribution to the debate and the amendments that she has brought forward here. I also thank her for convening a meeting of members of the crossbench and me in the last sitting. These amendments seek to sunset parts 7 and 8 after two years. I have discussed this with the member in those meetings and with a number of other members of the crossbench and can say publicly what I've flagged privately—that the government is looking at how we might transition these powers to an appropriate independent body such as the Australian tertiary education commission, once it is established. That was flagged in a discussion paper that was released recently about the Australian tertiary education commission. Obviously, it has not been established yet and the detailed design work on what that commission should look like and what it should do is being developed as we speak. The member has raised this concept with me, and I'm very happy to keep discussing this with her and other members of the crossbench in the House and in the Senate and looking at what provisions might be able to be put in the bill or in the explanatory memorandum to point to this. That said, though, at this point in time we're not in a position to support the amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 11 AYES Bates, S. J. 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. 46 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Garland, C. M. L. Gillespie, D. A. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Laxale, J. A. A. 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. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I move the amendment on sheet 2 as circulated in my name: (1)   Schedule 1, Parts 7 and 8, page 23 (line 1) to page 44 (line 25), omit the Parts. I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes schedules 7 and 8 from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university. I've already spoken at length about my concerns with schedules 7 and 8. In summary, first, I'm not convinced that the ministerial power to implement caps is about quality, integrity or sustainable growth of the sector. I'm concerned that it's in response to our domestic housing crisis; reducing the number of international students will, at least theoretically, free up some accommodation. Second, I've heard significant concerns from universities about how the application of these drastic powers will affect the sector. Universities rely on fees from international students to fund research and development capabilities. More than half of the financial investment in Australian research is funded by international students. Third, I'm worried about the ramifications for our international reputation and our economy. Given that education services are our fourth-largest export, changing the rules will affect education providers, students and their families. Education is a globally competitive market. Creating this level of uncertainty will mean that students will choose to study their chosen course in Canada, the US or New Zealand instead of here. There's broad support for schedules 1 to 6 of this bill, and I believe they contain good measures to improve the quality and integrity of our education sector. But I urge the government to reconsider the damaging effect of schedules 7 and 8 and remove these schedules from the bill. I commend the amendment to the House. 17:32 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Curtin for her amendment and for her engagement on this bill. The government is not able to support this amendment. As I said a moment ago in reply in this debate, we need to set up the international education sector for success. Part of that is making sure we protect the integrity of the system, which is what the first part of the bill does, and the second part is about protecting its social licence to operate. That involves providing certainty for universities and having a mechanism in place to promote sustainable growth over time. It's important that we have the tools necessary to do that. That's what these parts of the bill are all about. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. 48 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Garland, C. M. L. Gillespie, D. A. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. 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. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. 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. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. D. Wood, J. P. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:41 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 5), omit "2025", substitute "2026". (2) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 7), omit "2025", substitute "2026". (3) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 11), omit "2025", substitute "2026". (4) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 19), omit "2024", substitute "2025". (5) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 24), omit "2026", substitute "2027". (6) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 1), omit "2025", substitute "2026". (7) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 3), omit "2025", substitute "2026". (8) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 7), omit "2025", substitute "2026". (9) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 15), omit "2024", substitute "2025". (10) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 20), omit "2026", substitute "2027". (11) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 32), omit "2025", substitute "2026". The purpose of these amendments is to delay the introduction of caps on the number of international students in each course from 2025 to 2026. Throughout my consultation with the education sector, I have heard that the timing of this bill is a huge problem for institutions that are already well on their way to finalising enrolments for next year. Universities require significant notice if they are to manage student caps without causing chaos and damaging our international reputation as an education provider. The recruitment phase for international students generally begins 18 months before students commence. For most universities, applications for the 2025 intake are already open, with enrolment offers underway. Workforce and budget planning is undertaken and April or May of the year before. A number of universities told me of their concerns that this timeline means they would have to stop recruitment abruptly, which would likely result in the sector overcompensating and cutting international enrolments by more than is desirable. To ensure providers have sufficient certainty to plan their budgets and workforce allocations and advise students of conditions of their offers, caps should commence no earlier than 2026. A later commencement date would also provide the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Education with sufficient time to improve their data-sharing capabilities, which is a requirement noted in the Department of Home Affairs's submission to this enquiry. The current postpandemic bump in net migration is not expected to last. Arrivals are expected to ease and departures are expected to increase over the next few years as current international students finish their studies and go home. Delaying the implementation of caps to 2026 would give universities time for planning, allow for consultation on international education to establish evidence based and institutionally appropriate managed growth targets and provide more time to understand post-COVID migration trends. This amendment would also go some way to mitigating likely market and reputational shocks as well as reducing the negative impact on student experience and expectation. If the government is not going to accept this amendment in this House, I hope it will be seriously considered in the Senate. I commend this amendment to the House. 17:44 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank again the member for Curtin for her amendment. I agree with the sentiment that she's expressed about how important international education is to this country. As the member's aware, international students have come back at a rapid pace post the pandemic. We need to ensure that we secure the social licence for this sector and provide it with the certainty that it needs. I've said a number of times that it's important that this begin from next year, and that's what the bill sets out. That's what this amendment would push back for 12 months. That's why we aren't in a position to support this amendment. But let me say to the member that I do hope to be in a position to provide universities and other providers with their indicative student numbers in the very near future. Question negatived. 17:45 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of the operation of Part 7 of Schedule 1 (about enrolment limits) (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Part 7 of Schedule 1 to this Act. (2) The Minister must ensure that: (a) the review is conducted by an independent expert; and (b) the independent expert has access to all relevant information from the Department and providers. (3) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must consider: (a) the impact on providers of the enrolment limits resulting from the amendments; and (b) the impact of those enrolment limits on net overseas migration to Australia and housing availability; and (c) the impact of those enrolment limits on the quality of education offered to international and local students. (4) The review must commence in the first 6 months of 2026. (5) The independent expert must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. There's no doubt that there are significant and systemic issues with the quality of education provided at many institutions in this country, and the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 may well improve the integrity of education for secondary and tertiary international students in Australia. However, it also reflects a disappointing failure by the Albanese government to withstand Peter Dutton's negative politicking on immigration numbers. This failure places our tertiary education sector in particular— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order, Member for Kooyong! Could you please refer to members by their titles rather than their names. Dr RYAN 297660 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It places our tertiary education sector at great risk of becoming an unwilling and unfortunate victim of the major parties' race to the bottom on the politics of immigration. The bill proposes several measures which could damage the tertiary education sector, including the arbitrarily set enrolment caps for individual courses and providers. The bill gives the minister extraordinary powers to suspend or cancel courses for international students without consultation. There are limited accountability provisions and avenues for appeal. Institutions have no right to a merits review. We're told that the minister will exercise these extraordinary powers only in extraordinary circumstances, and that may well be true of this minister, but we have no guarantees regarding his potential successors. I remind the House of the damage done by previous education ministers: the current member for Wannon and his colleagues Senator Birmingham, the former member for Bradfield Brendan Nelson and the former member for Fadden Stuart Robert when they were education ministers. The Sheil review of their political interference in the education sector found that the negative consequences of the perception—just the perception—of arbitrary intervention have been significant, both within Australia and with our international partners. This legislation could well be no different. Australian universities have already experienced a long-term decline in government investment, particularly in infrastructure and in research and development. They are now reliant on tuition fees from full-fee-paying international students. Whether or not we like this, the responsibility for that fact has to be laid at the feet of governments, which have for decades underfunded student places as well as research and development. Some of the members who've spoken to this bill in this House have demonstrated a disturbing degree of dislike or distaste for international students, and I would go so far as to say that some have verged upon xenophobia. My colleagues need to remember that these international students contribute very significantly to the cost of running our universities—the universities that Australian students attend. If we lose all those students, the cost of the universities will fall on Australian shoulders alone. This legislation is a shameful negation of four decades of effort by successive Australian governments to develop our international education sector. Tertiary institutions are already experiencing negative impacts from the government's slowed visa processing and from decreased approval rates. Electorates like mine already have fewer students in our cafes and our shops. We can anticipate labour shortages for local businesses and for the care sector. The effects of this sudden policy shift will not be quickly undone. So I have moved the amendment circulated in my name, which will legislate a review of the consequences of this bill. The review will commence in the first six months of 2026, and it will be conducted by an independent expert. It will consider the effect on providers of the proposed enrolment limits, their effect on net overseas migration and housing availability in Australia, and the impact of this bill on the quality of education offered to both international and local students. The review must report within six months of its inception, and the minister must share the report with both houses of parliament within 15 days of receiving it. As a former senior academic, I believe that the first goal of our universities should be the education of Australians, but, when we can do that, we can also do that while including and educating the young people of other nations. We can do that to our mutual social and economic benefit. We should do that. And I hope that the government will accept the need for a critical review of this ill-conceived legislation at a reasonable time after it's implemented in the hope that we might limit the damage that it does. 17:50 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Kooyong for her amendment and indicate that the government will support this amendment. I've said consistently throughout the debate that I'm very keen to work with the sector to make sure that we get the design of this legislation right. Once implemented, it's important that we monitor the impact of the legislation and how the reforms are working and operating. So the government will support the member for Kooyong's amendment to implement an independent review of part 7 and 8 of the bill in 2026. Question agreed to. 17:50 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I move amendments (1) to (33), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, page 10 (before line 2), before the heading specifying the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, insert: Division 1 — Amendments (2) Schedule 1, item 33, page 16 (after line 18), at the end of Division 5, add: 14H Division ceases to have effect This Division ceases to have effect immediately after the earlier of the following: (a) 3 years after the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Act 2024; (b) when each mission based compact required to be entered into under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in respect of a provider and a year adequately provides for managed growth. (3) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the Part, add: Division 2 — Application of Amendments 34A Application provision Subject to this item, Division 5 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, as inserted by Division 1 of this Part, applies in relation to a registered provider: (a) if the provider is an exempt provider or a wholly-owned subsidiary of an exempt provider—in relation to the 2026 calendar year and later calendar years; and (b) otherwise—in relation to the 2025 calendar year and later calendar years. (4) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 6 to 10), omit the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5, substitute: course enrolment limit: see section 26E. (5) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (after line 10), after the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5, insert: enrolled: a person is enrolled in a course provided by a registered provider if the person: (a) is issued with a Confirmation of Enrolment confirming acceptance for enrolment in the course; and (b) is progressing towards completion of the course requirements. (6) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 11 to 15), omit the definition of total enrolment limit in section 5, substitute: total enrolment limit: see section 26B. (7) Schedule 1, item 47, page 24 (line 4), omit "and notices". (8) Schedule 1, item 47, page 24 (line 6), omit "or notices". (9) Schedule 1, item 47, page 26 (line 3), omit "1 September", substitute "1 July". (10) Schedule 1, item 47, page 27 (line 1) to page 28 (line 20), omit section 26C. (11) Schedule 1, item 47, page 28 (lines 22 to 32), omit subsection 26D(1), substitute: (1) A registered provider (other than an exempt provider) must not enrol an overseas student, or intending overseas student, for a course that the provider is registered to provide in the year, if the enrolment of the student would result in the provider exceeding the total enrolment limit specified in the instrument under subsection 26B(1) for the provider and the year. (12) Schedule 1, item 47, page 29 (lines 6 to 7), omit ", or before the notice was given,". (13) Schedule 1, item 47, page 30 (line 29), omit "1 September", substitute "1 July". (14) Schedule 1, item 47, page 31 (line 28) to page 33 (line 17), omit section 26F. (15) Schedule 1, item 47, page 33 (lines 19 to 30), omit subsection 26G(1), substitute: (1) A registered provider (other than an exempt provider) must not enrol an overseas student, or intending overseas student, for a course that the provider is registered to provide in the year, if the enrolment of the student would result in the provider exceeding the course enrolment limit specified in the instrument under subsection 26E(1) for the course, the provider and the year. (16) Schedule 1, item 47, page 34 (lines 4 to 5), omit ", or before the notice was given,". (17) Schedule 1, item 47, page 34 (after line 8), at the end of Division 1AA, add: Subdivision D — Division ceases to have effect 26H Division ceases to have effect This Division ceases to have effect immediately after the earlier of the following: (a) 3 years after the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Act 2024; (b) when each mission based compact required to be entered into under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in respect of a provider and a year adequately provides for managed growth. (18) Schedule 1, items 48 to 51, page 34 (line 9) to page 38 (line 10), omit the items. (19) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 3 to 6), omit subitem (1), substitute: (1) Subject to this item, Division 1AA of Part 3 and Division 1AA of Part 6 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, as inserted by Division 1 of this Part, apply: (a) if the provider is an exempt provider or a wholly-owned subsidiary of an exempt provider—in relation to the 2026 calendar year and later calendar years; and (b) otherwise—in relation to the 2025 calendar year and later calendar years. (20) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 8 to 9), omit "or gives a notice under section 26C". (21) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 14), omit "or notice". (22) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 17 to 19), omit "1 September of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 31 December 2024", substitute "1 July of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 1 September 2024". (23) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 21 to 22), omit "or gives a notice under section 26C". (24) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 27), omit "or notice". (25) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 30), omit "or notice". (26) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 4 to 5), omit "or gives a notice under section 26F". (27) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 11), omit "or notice". (28) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 13 to 15), omit "1 September of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 31 December 2024", substitute "1 July of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 1 September 2024". (29) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 17 to 18), omit "or gives a notice under section 26F". (30) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 23), omit "or notice". (31) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 26), omit "or notice". (32) Schedule 1, item 55, page 44 (after line 19), at the end of Division 1AB, add: 96E Division ceases to have effect This Division ceases to have effect immediately after the earlier of the following: (a) 3 years after the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Act 2024; (b) when each mission based compact required to be entered into under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in respect of a provider and a year adequately provides for managed growth. (33) Schedule 1, item 56, page 44 (lines 21 to 25), omit the item, substitute: 56 Application provision Division 1AB of Part 6 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, as inserted by Division 1 of this Part, applies: (a) if the provider registered to provide the course is an exempt provider or a wholly-owned subsidiary of an exempt provider—in relation to courses registered to be provided for the 2026 calendar year and later calendar years; and (b) otherwise—in relation to courses registered to be provided for the 2025 calendar year and later calendar years. As I said during my second reading speech on this bill, international students contribute to the wellbeing of Australians by fuelling the economic growth and prosperity that provide jobs for Australians. In 2023, international education contributed $48 billion to the Australian economy. I maintain that this bill represents a kneejerk reaction to the coalition's false attribution of our current housing supply crisis to migration, particularly international students. However, since the government is insisting on proceeding with it, I wish to offer several amendments to improve it. I'd like to thank the higher education sector—in particular, the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney—for their engagement with me and my office. I'd like to thank the minister and his office for engaging as well. He knows that this bill, I think it is fair to say, can be improved, and we have had productive conversations, but ultimately I do hope to see in his response in this process and in the other place some more clarity around his commitment to where the government is willing to look at improving this legislation. We need to make sure that we enhance the higher education sector. I don't disagree with making sure we have guardrails and protections where providers are not operating as they should, but, in relation to the higher education sector, we need to make sure we are not destroying a very vital part of our economy. In particular, locally in Warringah, I know that small businesses rely a lot, when it comes to retail and hospitality, on the contribution of international students. The amendments go firstly to defining enrolment, which is a core issue of this legislation, to avoid the caps being issued being lower than actual acceptance. Currently, the definition in the bill refers to the caps going to an enrolment. Caps on offers are very different to caps on enrolments. This is aimed at ensuring that the legislation avoids the situation where a provider can have a limit imposed which is less than the number of overseas students that have already been accepted and confirmation of enrolment issued before the commencement date. It's also incredibly important because good practice—and it often happens—is that not all offers issued by any one institution are accepted. In fact, it's often the case that more offers need to be issued to ensure ultimately a full acceptance rate and enrolment in those courses and that they are taken up. With a cap in place, providers then have a problem whereby they can only issue as many offers as is allowed by the cap. But, with not all offers being accepted, final enrolments will be well under that cap, so it's very important that that definition in relation to that cap applies to enrolments, not offers. Secondly, I propose that this legislation be deferred for commencement for public universities and TAFE till 2026. We have had some debate on this issue, but it is worth repeating. It will ensure that there is time for implementation of this bill thoroughly and not in a rushed manner, avoiding any unintended consequences for the higher education sector. It's good that a review period has been agreed to, but that is after the fact, whereas deferring commencement ensures that this is done well and does not damage our international reputation ahead of time. It is particularly important from a planning perspective but also helps ensure proper policy processes and implementation can be done for such a large and complex piece of legislation and in such an important industry. I also propose that the legislation have a sunset clause put in effect to avoid giving the minister power in perpetuity. It would send an important signal to the sector and provide reassurance. I note discussions about implementing a body that would take over the role from the minister, but that is not an assurance in itself for these institutions. The date for setting enrolment limits should also be amended to being in July rather than September the preceding year. This, again, would help students in higher education institutions plan better. They need to make their decisions at least six months in advance, often with a lead time of two or more years. Finally, I propose amendments to ensure transparency for setting enrolment limits to be done by disallowable instrument, rather than by notice, alongside removing the automatic suspension for an operator in breach of provisions. These two amendments are both key to ensuring the powers in this bill do not have any unintended consequences but also that there is greater clarity and scrutiny in this place on the decisions the minister makes now or in the future in relation to these caps. It is important to have this as a disallowable instrument. 17:56 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Warringah for her amendments and her engagement on this important piece of legislation. As the member indicated, we had conversations this morning around these amendments. Some of them touch on matters which my department has discussed at length with many stakeholders in the sector. As I discussed with the member, the government isn't in a position to support these amendments today. However, we will consider some of these issues through the Senate and the Senate processes that are currently underway with the education and employment committee looking at this legislation. Let me just touch on some of those amendments individually. On delaying the start of measures in this bill, let me refer to the comments I made earlier in relation to the member for Curtin's amendment. It is important, we believe, that these provisions get underway from next year. On the enrolment amendment, I know there are concerns around the definition of 'enrolment'. We all want the same thing. If an institution is provided with a level or a number of students, it is important that they can enrol up to that full number. It's about how we make sure that we do that right, whether it is through the bill or through the code. My department does have some concerns about the uncertainty the amendment in its current form might create, but, as we discussed this morning, I am happy to continue the conversation with you and other colleagues as we move forward to the Senate. On the sunset clause, as I said in relation to the member for Goldstein's proposed amendment, the government is currently considering the transition of these powers to an appropriate independent body such as the Australian tertiary education commission when that bill is established. That was flagged in the discussion paper which was recently released. Of course, that body does not exist yet, but it is our intention, subject to the detailed discussions that we are having with the sector, to bring forward legislation to establish that body. On the amendment concerning the date on which universities are advised, this issue is one which universities have raised with me as well. I understand that universities require certainty as soon as they can have it. That's why I'm happy to continue talking to the member about this issue and what the right way to address this in the bill is. Also, we'll look at what the Senate committee determines. Certainly, once we announced our intention to introduce this legislation, I spoke to many members of the sector about the importance of spending the next few months in getting the detailed design of this right. The response from the sector was: 'Give us the levels, the caps, in August, not September.' That is why I foreshadowed just a moment ago in relation to one of the amendments moved by the member for Curtin that it's my intention to provide that certainty and that information to the sector in the very near future. On the amendment concerning transparency, this do not necessarily provide the certainty that universities need. However, I appreciate the member's sentiment in moving this amendment and I am happy to consider other ways in which we might be able to make these processes as transparent as possible. We had a good conversation about that this morning, so I'm giving that further thought. In relation to removing automatic suspensions when caps are breached, it's important that the system work properly and that providers can't wilfully or accidentally exceed the limit. That's one of the risks in the design of the amendment as put to the House. That's what this provision is about. There is a mechanism for providers in the bill, as it is drafted at the moment, to contact the secretary of my department and seek that suspensions be lifted. Just in closing, I thank the member for Warringah again for the considered and thoughtful way in which she has brought forward these amendments, and I thank all members of the crossbench who are here. This is how legislation should work: scrutinising the bill and identifying where we can make it better. As I flagged in my summing up, we're not in a position to accept all of these amendments at the moment, but I do identify, in your amendments, things where we can improve the bill, and I'll seek, through the work of the Senate committee as well as through the ongoing consultation that we're having with the higher education sector and the vocational education sector, to look at what amendments we might be able to accept when the bill is debated in the Senate, drawing on the work, the effort and the wisdom of members of the crossbench who have brought this to bear in this debate. I thank you for it. 18:01 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Thank you, Minister, for your engagement and that response. I seek further consideration or clarification in this consideration in detail stage around that question of the cap applying to either enrolments or offers, because obviously—with the final amendment relating to suspension if there is a breach—that's the key nexus. If the cap applies to offers as opposed to actual enrolments, that provides a very real limitation; there is a percentage of dropout rate or non-acceptance of offers that they need to take into account. I appreciate the minister's comments in relation to waiting for advice from the committee. The minister referred to the code, for example. Could greater clarification be provided about what is intended to be addressed in this code? Again, it's an instrument that is not before the parliament, so it's very hard to provide assurance to the sector when it's something we don't have visibility on. Who will contribute to the creation of that code, for example, but also, in relation to the explanatory memorandum, is that an area where the minister is looking at providing greater clarity, on top of whether, through the legislation, the caps apply to actual enrolments rather than simply offers? 18:02 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Warringah for that question. It's my intention, as I'm sure you would want it to be, that it apply to enrolments to rather than offers. What we want to make sure of is that, if a university is given a number of students, it is able to have that full number of students at that university. If, for different reasons, they make a number of offers but aren't able to fill that full number of students at that university, that would be self-defeating. I don't want that to occur. We think that what's included in the code, which is existing at the moment, helps us to do that, but I want to do further work with my department to make sure that we're properly addressing your concerns. I might be able to do that with you face to face or via correspondence. In relation to the explanatory memorandum, there may be the ability, when the bill reaches the Senate, for us to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the member for Goldstein as well as, I think, by the member for Curtin around transferring powers to an independent Australian tertiary education commission through the explanatory memorandum. We can't do it in the bill, because the ATEC doesn't exist yet; it won't exist until it's legislated. But it could be pointed to in the explanatory memorandum. So, when you talk about the EM, that's where I think there might be some value in making an amendment to the EM. Question negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 61 18:04 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 61

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 61 18:05 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading, and: (1) notes: (a) the failure of billions of dollars of the Government's Future Made in Australia spending to meet the standards and processes laid out in this Bill and the significant integrity concerns around these investments; (b) the Government's Future Made in Australia policy has been criticised by many eminent economists including the Productivity Commission's Danielle Wood; former Productivity Commissioner Gary Banks; Australian National University visiting fellow Steven Hamilton; and University of New South Wales' Professor Richard Holden; and (c) this policy does not make up for the Government's failures on economic management that are driving up the costs of manufacturing and have caused a tripling of manufacturing insolvencies since June 2022; and (2) calls on the Government to get Australia's economy back on track and back to basics by fighting inflation and reducing wasteful spending, reducing complexity and red tape for business, supporting affordable, reliable energy, and delivering lower, simpler, fairer taxes". The coalition will oppose this bill. The more we learn about this plan, the more it simply doesn't stack up. This is a plan for pork-barrelling, not the Australian economy. It's a plan for more government, not more business investment. It's a plan for more inflation at a time when Labor is already making its homegrown inflation worse. This country has a proud and strong manufacturing industry and history, and the coalition has always supported it. Indeed, at a very personal level, I spent much of my career before coming into this place working in our manufacturing sectors—in the steel industry in aluminium smelting, in refining and in food processing. I learned, from working in all of those sectors for decades— Mr TAYLOR 231027 those opposite should show some respect—that this is an incredibly important sector for this nation. I was proud to work with this sector as industry minister, saving the Portland smelter, saving the Viva Energy refinery down in Melbourne, and saving the Ampol refinery in Brisbane. These were important issues we took, and we saw, as a result, a strong sector during that time. Sadly, since then, we've seen some big steps backwards. We've lost a refinery in Kwinana. We're losing businesses at a rate of knots in this country right now—19,000 insolvencies, record levels of insolvencies we are seeing in this country right now, businesses small and large. We see Nickel West leaving in Western Australia. We see serious questions about lithium mining over in Western Australia right now, and those opposite should pay attention to what is going on right now in the manufacturing sector in this country. The message I would convey to all—and this was the main thing I learned in my decades working in these sectors, before politics, was that you have to get the basics right. You have to get back to basics and get those basics right. And what are they? Affordable, reliable energy. You cannot run an aluminium smelter unless you have affordable, reliable energy. It's the same with an aluminium refinery and with any metal processing or food processing. Affordable, reliable energy is not negotiable. Flexible workplaces—you have to be able to allow workers and employers to sit down together and work out what is good for the employees and good for the employer at the same time. If you cannot do that, you cannot compete. These are tough industries, and they go to other countries if we are not able to remain competitive. If we do, it's good for workers and it's good for employers. That means we have to have a tax system, too, that is right for these industries. The policies we have seen from those opposite on energy, on industrial relations, on red tape and on approvals are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business. As I said, we see insolvencies up and productivity down. We've never seen a drop in labour productivity like we've seen since those opposite came to power: over five per cent. The truth is that that affects everybody's prosperity. The results are clear: our standard of living, our real household disposable incomes, have fallen by eight per cent since those opposite came to power. The real wages of working families, based on the employee living cost index, are down nine per cent. Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 Wages are up four per cent. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I will take the interjection from the member opposite. In the latest data that came out today and in the last week, we have seen nominal wages rise—and they're crowing about it—4.1 per cent, but guess what the living cost index for employees did at the same time. That went up 6.2 per cent. This is what happens when you don't get the basics right. As for the MIA bill, the only thing being made in Australia right now is inflation. This MIA bill is more about spin than it is about delivery. Economist after economist has criticised this policy, and I will come back and talk more about some of the comments that have been made about it, but, every day, we hear more about the dodgy processes, the lack of economic scrutiny and the double standards that have already applied in this program. This is a slogan in search of a policy. The government cannot solve the cost-of-living crisis by throwing hard-earned taxpayers' money around. That is not the way to do it. The Prime Minister might want to pick winners. He might think he's got the answers and he knows how to pick winners, but Australian families will lose from Labor's reckless spending. This bill is a demonstration of Labor's wrong priorities. After spending the whole of 2023 talking about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice instead of the cost of living, Australians were hopeful, because we're an optimistic lot, that the next year, 2024, would be the year when the Prime Minister focused on taming inflation, but instead he revealed a plan to spend even more money to make productivity worse and which has failed to gain any support from mainstream economists. Labor has plenty of handouts to lobbyists and overseas corporations, many of whom have other ways to finance than relying on government, but they're keen to hand out the money anyway. But they don't have a plan that is showing any progress whatsoever for struggling families and small businesses. Meanwhile, we are all seeing a full-blown cost-of-living crisis and a cost-of-doing-business crisis in this country. We are absolutely at the back of the pack when it comes to dealing with inflation. Those opposite want to make international comparisons. I will make the international comparison that matters. Since December last year, we are the only one of the major advanced countries in the world where inflation is going up and not down. We're the only one. Back of the pack! And this hapless Treasurer and government continue to crow and tell Australians they've never had it so good. Well, I tell you what: the Australians I talk to beg to differ. Meanwhile, we are in a GDP per capita recession. We haven't seen GDP per person go up in five quarters. It's a household recession as Australians go backwards. Since Labor came to power, as I said, prices are up, but the living cost index for employees is up 18 per cent. Personal income tax payments for Australians are up 20 per cent. Real wages, I've already said, are down nine per cent. Living standards—real disposable income—are down by eight per cent. As for household savings, Australians have given up saving. How can you save when the purchasing power in your pay packet has collapsed? You can't because you have to spend that money just to get by every single day. This bill does absolutely nothing to alleviate the pressures on struggling families and small businesses, and we know this big spending agenda will only make inflation worse. Households are going to great lengths to keep their heads above water. They're cracking open the piggy bank because there's nothing else left to do. These bills expand the role of Export Finance Australia and ARENA and establish a national interest framework that retrospectively underpins the government's Future Made in Australia policy. The accompanying omnibus bill expands EFA's remit to fund domestic industries—it's called Export Finance Australia, but it will now fund domestic industries—and nominates the Minister for Finance as an additional responsible minister. The omnibus bill also expands ARENA's functions from a pure R&D and demonstration to support manufacturing and deployment. Importantly, embedded in that is the fact that this legislation fundamentally changes the purposes, duties and roles of ARENA. ARENA has always been a research and development agency. This is clear in its remit, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech. Labor in opposition opposed even expanding the remit to cover sensible measures like net zero related R&D expenditure, including carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen. They opposed that when they were in opposition. How times have changed. Now they're expanding that remit even further into deployment and manufacturing and because it suits the purposes of those they're seeking to please. If ARENA is doing deployment, why is the CEFC even needed? That was the role of the CEFC—deployment. If these industries are commercially viable, why do they need government funding? But Labor's changes are a little more insidious when you look a little deeper. The bill gives the Minister for Climate Change and Energy the ability to boost its funding at the stroke of a pen. That's how it works; that's how it's set up. There's no parliamentary oversight, no scrutiny, just some delegated legislation. And the government can roll out up to $3.98 billion—let's call it $4 billion because it's pretty much that—out the door in an election year. That's how it's structured—no scrutiny. This is a slush fund, plain and simple. That is what's being set up here by Labor. Australians are already on the hook for Labor's inflation. We've seen them spend $315 billion since they came to power, $30,000 for every Australian household. I don't think many Australian households feel they're getting value for money from that. Added into that now is this $4 billion slush fund for an election year. That's what they're planning to do. The legislation puts the Treasurer and his department in a position to decide whether a sector of the Australian economy deserves investment. It will be up to him. This is the guy who wrote the 6,000-word essay on remaking capitalism. He's going to be capitalism in this country, as far as he's concern. The Treasurer has never run a business and described his private sector career as 'six long, long months'. Those were his words. His private sector career was six long, long months. And he's going to be deciding which sectors in Australia get hard-earned taxpayers' money. His department will consider the investment against a very narrow set of criteria. They've provided evidence to Senate estimates that key investments for Australia's energy future and sovereign capability—be they carbon capture and storage, gas, blue hydrogen, uranium or nuclear—will not be eligible and have not been considered as part of the framework. It's very clear the criteria here are ideological and based on the Treasurer and the government's biases. The analysis to greenlight these investments will be guided by a Treasurer who has never worked in business seriously and a department of bureaucrats who, under this government, have made a reputation for failing to understand business. Meanwhile, their Orwellian community benefit principles will entrench union involvement in the workplace and replicate much of the same social procurement policies that have enabled the CFMEU's corrupt conduct to flourish across this nation. The truth of the matter is that those links, that requirement for union involvement, is part of what we see with everything that Labor is doing here. We have no problem with workers choosing to be part of a union. Choice is what we believe in. What we don't believe in is allowing the construction industry to be controlled by a union that has links to underworld figures and bikie gangs. That's the truth of the situation right now. This is not the way to build a healthy and productive economy. The Business Council has warned that these procurement rules are at risk of enabling this behaviour, while it risks subsidising businesses Australia would never have a comparative advantage in. The BCA rightly points out that this is important, because there are hard-earned taxpayer dollars at stake. We on this side of the House understand how hard small businesses work to create those taxpayer dollars. They're not created by the Public Service. They're created by hardworking businesspeople in this country— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 And their workers. Mr TAYLOR 231027 And their workers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Lyons is warned. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I accept that interjection. I absolutely accept it. The best path to get back to basics and to get the fundamentals right is to get the fundamentals right. That's the way we should be proceeding here, and it's not the way this is proceeding. BCA president Bran Black has said: Our competitors (think Canada, the US, and across Asia) are more investment-friendly environments based on old-fashioned fundamentals like … regulation— like good regulation, that is. He went on: To reinvent our economy we must, as a point of national urgency, become a more competitive place to do business. That's getting the basics right. The Productivity Commission says a billion-dollar commitment to make more solar panels in Australia under Anthony Albanese's Future Made in Australia program should be retrospectively subjected to a tougher National Interest Framework test. It said: Allowing sectors to bypass the NIF process would undermine its role in disciplining spending. Yet Labor are already breaking their own rules when it suits them. This is the extraordinary thing: they create the rules and then proceed to ignore them. Key elements of Labor's MIA agenda include the $22.7 billion PsiQuantum contract, which bypassed the National Interest Framework and sector assessments. They haven't taken any notice of it. There are serious questions to answer about the decision to make this investment, with it being increasingly clear that the Minister for Industry and Science's decision to invest in this business was independent of any departmental appraisal, analysis or recommendation. That's how it proceeds. It looks suspiciously like crony capitalism to me, I have to say. Treasury were not consulted prior to the decision to invest in solar manufacturing, and their subsequent analysis has said that it is not a sound investment. That's what Treasury said. The Productivity Commission was not consulted on the details of the proposed investments prior to their announcements, and we're already seeing that the policy is not effective. The Solar SunShot program has been refused backing by the Treasurer's own secretary, with the main proponent of the policy, who stood alongside the Prime Minister as he announced the initiative, cutting back its staff and replacing their CEO. Already it's falling to pieces. Fortescue—the biggest booster of green hydrogen, which is the target of the program—is scaling back its ambitions for green hydrogen already. It's true it was billions for billionaires, but the billionaire is handing it back. He's decided he doesn't want it. Labor's production credits are failing to deliver for the struggling nickel industry. I mentioned Nickel West earlier. It's very sad to see what we're seeing with Nickel West right now. What's very clear is that this policy is not making any difference whatsoever. It's not just the coalition raising serious concerns here. As I said, the Productivity Commission's Danielle Wood, the government's key economic adviser, who was appointed by the Treasurer, has said: If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses. We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more. I'm sure they'll come back for more. Wood also said: Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers, and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap. Danielle Wood is not alone. The former Productivity Commissioner, Gary Banks, described the MIA policy as a 'fool's errand' that risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. I think 'political favourites' is generous. He goes on to say: Seeking to obtain benefits to society through subsidies for particular firms or industries, including in the form of tax concessions, has proven a fool's errand, particularly where the competitive fundamentals are lacking. Gary Banks likened the scheme to the song 'Hotel California', saying 'many will enter the program, but few will ever leave.' In response to this, the Prime Minister called Mr Banks 'a flat earther'. Banks is a highly respected former public servant in this nation who has served this nation in an extraordinary way. I don't think he deserved that kind of label. Another eminent economist, Professor Richard Holden, defended Mr Banks, saying that the insult was 'wrong and uncalled for'. He went on to say, 'The PM says all the wrong things.' He's quite right about that. The PM says all the wrong things. Holden said: His main argument for subsidies is that other countries are doing it. Like a primary school kid telling to a teacher 'but he started it'. Another economist, Steven Hamilton said: There are many problems with industry policy and this is a big one. It's why I tend to favour more neutral investment incentives like a lower corporate tax rate or accelerated depreciation. We've been supportive of accelerated depreciation on this side of this place. Hamilton goes on to say: I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back. Hamilton then talks about comparisons with the US IRA, saying: That is a totally different proposition to doing so in Australia. Without a large domestic market, exports are the only way for Australia to achieve scale. But we are so far away from the kinds of markets we could sell into, that shipping costs put us at a distinct disadvantage. No amount of government subsidy is going to get around that. I could keep on quoting. Even the AMWU—you would have thought they'd been pretty supportive of Labor as the dominant left faction union and a source of talent for Labor in parliament—don't want Treasury to have a central role in the Future Made in Australia. They believe Treasury has 'limited expertise'. That reflects my comments earlier. We know the way forward for our manufacturing sector. The success we all want to see is absolutely getting back to basics, getting inflation under control and getting the cost of doing business under control—just as it's so essential to get the cost of living under control in this country. That means we have to make sure that we have a fiscal strategy in this country that takes pressure off inflation. Yet the first thing this Treasurer did in his first budget was to get rid of the fiscal strategy that had been in place since the 1990s. It was a fiscal strategy put in place by Peter Costello, and Wayne Swan didn't even get rid of it, but the current Treasurer did. Secondly, we will wind back Labor's regulatory roadblocks and interventions, which are suffocating business and the economy, stopping businesses from getting ahead. This is in areas like approvals. We know approvals are absolutely essential to having a strong manufacturing and mining sector in this country. Thirdly, we will remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on businesses. We see they're moving into the Pilbara. I have to say, the Pilbara is a place where you have the very highest paid and most productive workers in the world. It's extraordinary what's been achieved up there by those businesses and their workers over many years. Labor has said, 'No. We're going to send in the union officials. They're going to make it better.' The most competitive industry in this country and the most competitive mining industry in the world, and the union officials are moving in. Well, we don't think that's the way to strengthen our economy and create higher real wages for workers and create opportunities for all Australians. Fourth, we will provide simpler, lower and fairer taxes for all, including for small business. Accelerated depreciation is a very key policy for us and for small businesses in this country. Fifth, we will deliver competition policy that gives consumers and small businesses a fair go, not lobbyists and big corporations. Finally, we will focus on delivering affordable, reliable energy to all Australians. This is essential for our manufacturing sector. This is essential for ourselves. There is a better way. The Labor Party's MIA bill is not the way forward. It will not create a prosperous, strong manufacturing sector that will create jobs and opportunities for Australians across this great nation. That is not the way forward. There is a better way forward. We will continue to put that way forward. That is embedded in the amendment that I have just circulated in my name. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Bell 282981 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:31 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen That was an interesting 25 minutes that we'll never get back! You would think that a shadow minister would come in here and talk about a bill, talk about a policy and talk about what they would do. But all we had was 21 minutes of self-reflection and carry-on, complaining about other members of parliament. I did laugh when I heard the member talk about his experience in manufacturing. I looked up his bio. He's never worked in manufacturing. So we had 15 minutes of self-reflection and yet the member opposite has never worked in manufacturing. The only time he has done anything in manufacturing is being in a government that watched 60,000 jobs go offshore in one hit. Every single one of them sat there and watched the end of the automotive industry, one of the largest industries in this nation that had produced great cars but also produced many, many great careers for people working in manufacturing. I get those on the other side have come in with their polished-up fingernails because they have never had any dirt on their hands. They have never worked in a manufacturing process. They've never actually worked in a factory and seen what goes on. I did an apprenticeship in a manufacturing factory. Ms Bell 282981 How would you know? You wouldn't have a clue. I'm from three generations of manufacturers. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E At least your scarf's bright. I would probably suggest you sit there and be quiet because, when you talk, you make yourself look silly. So how about you just relax and listen because I'm going to talk about the bill. This is something that is unique because, as I said, we couldn't even get three minutes out of the 'member for Jam Land' on the bill. It is just ridiculous that we can't get the opposition to talk about a bill because they've got nothing to say. The only thing they say now, and that they say consistently, is no. They just oppose everything, because they have no ideas. They talk about getting Australia back on track. Well, let's talk about their record. Let's talk about inflation. It's now a lot less than it was when they were in government. We could talk about rising interest rates. It started under them because, for nine years, they neglected the economy and looked after their mates. They talk about the CFMEU. Let's remember that, for nine years in government, they didn't do a thing. They chased them for having stickers on their helmets and flags up flagpoles but didn't do anything about it. That's because they are an empty, vacuous lot over there that are all talk and no action. What we did was put together the Future Made in Australia. We actually care about manufacturing jobs. We found problems during COVID, with us being at the end of the line. There were times when people couldn't even get a fridge, a washing machine or plaster to build a home. No wonder we've still got this housing crisis that started back in 2017 that they did nothing about. That was under former prime minister Turnbull. I'm not sure who his deputy was at that time—there were a few at that stage—but that was the first time we started talking about the housing crisis. So what we've done is be a government that has come in and said, 'We value workers and we value this nation, and we want to build things here.' When it comes to wrapping yourself in a flag, you'll see that lot stand there and talk about our sovereignty and what a great nation this is. But, when it comes to the crunch, Australians know that they will never, ever have Australian working men and women's backs, because they don't. They sat there through their nine years and did nothing on housing, did nothing on Medicare and did nothing on superannuation. They tried to destroy the NDIS and created a headache that we are cleaning up again. They did nothing on lifting workers' wages. In fact, remember they said that low wages were a strategic part of their policies and programs. Mr Burnell 300129 A deliberate design feature. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Exactly. That tells you all you need to know about what they think about workers in this country. We have been the party that has always built a future for Australia, so it makes sense that our party is here to create the Future Made in Australia policy. The legislation before us makes this a reality, with more job opportunities, more industry and more products made here in Australia. It's not rocket science to sit there and say that you need a government like the Albanese government recognising that the opportunity is in front of us and we need to grasp this opportunity. If we don't capitalise on the global gap in industry, the opportunity will pass us by. We have the resources, we have the space and we have the skilled workforce, and there is a global appetite for the products that Australians can deliver. This policy will maximise the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero, making Australia wealthier, more secure and more independent. It will not only secure Australia's place as an ever-changing global economic landscape but cement our place in an increasingly unstable strategic landscape. Like many others across the nation, I have an ongoing professional interest in the success of this policy. As Chair of the House Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, I have been fortunate enough to travel the country and see cutting-edge industries as they mature and thrive. I have seen the ambition that's out there and the need for a suitable level of government support. I would encourage all members to have a look at our report Sovereign, smart, sustainable: driving advanced manufacturing in Australia—and, yes, Member for Riverina, you can have a signed copy if you pop into the office later. Mr McCormack 219646 You promise? Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E I promise you that. You will see from what we have documented there that there are possibilities out there and that the people, with some support, can deliver world-beating products from Australia to the world. It's no surprise to me that, in the May 2024 budget, the government outlined its plan to invest $22.7 billion over the next decade to build a future made in Australia. They say we live in the lucky country, but I'm not sure that that's right, because luck has an element of chance put in it. This country is fantastic because it has been built on ingenuity, hard work and the desire to build a better future for our kids and our nation. Our land is filled with the resources to kickstart industry and one of the most upskilled workforces on earth to make this happen. These strengths also make us an ideal destination for private investors and industry to boost this program. Although the government has a vision and has initiative to get industry off the ground, we are opening the doors for private enterprise and investment to help us seize the opportunity that lies before us. This plan of increasing Australia's manufacturing capability will build a stronger, more diverse and more resilient economy, and that's what we need to do. We've seen the need for this due to an increasingly unstable and tense geopolitical climate. Whether it's Russia's illegal war in Ukraine, the escalation of violence in the Middle East or rising tension amongst our neighbours, these ever-changing global events put supply chains under pressure. The Future Made in Australia plan will better protect Australians from this global pressure while also creating a source for well-placed jobs that deliver benefits to communities across the country. It's not about cost; it's about the investment. The more we give people better, secure jobs, better-paying jobs and reliable jobs, the more they can invest in the economy and the economy grows. We can't continue with the nine years of shrinking that we saw under the previous government. So what is a future made in Australia all about? It's about attracting and enabling investment. It's about making Australia a renewable energy superpower, value-adding to our resources, strengthening economic security, backing Australians and Australian ideas with innovation in digital and science, and investing in people and places—all the things that those opposite oppose. The bills before us impose rigour on government decision-making, giving investors the clarity and certainty they need to invest. Through this, we recognise our combined comparative advantage in renewable energy and traditional strengths in resources and manufacturing, to build new opportunities, including critical mineral processing, green metals, clean energy technology and low-carbon liquid fuels. It's an outrage that we produce the product to make the fuels and we send it over and buy it back. We should be doing it here. This is an opportunity we have right now before us, as we hit the quarter-of-the-century mark, to say, 'Where do we want our country to go?' We don't want another case like the one where the opposition told the auto industry in 2014 to get lost. Forty thousand people directly lost their jobs, whether for the big manufacturers or for those in the supply chain. It's no surprise that the coalition oppose a bill like this, because they know nothing about bringing manufacturing to Australia. What they do know is how to scare manufacturing off. The decision from the coalition not to back the auto industry means Australia is missing out on increasing global demand for hybrid and electric vehicles. We could have been capitalising on this opportunity. We could have been one step ahead. But instead, because of Abbott and Hockey's decision to force the auto industry offshore, we're two steps behind. A decade of manufacturing neglect has made the work to repair all this much harder. Our government refuses to let that same type of opportunity slip away from our nation. This is where the Future Made in Australia plan comes in—renewable Australia as a renewable energy superpower, and specifically the technology and resources available to Australia to become a renewable superpower. You only have to go and look at manufacturing in this space to see what ingenuity comes out of this country, what we can build and how we can be world leading. No more do we want to see Pig Iron Bob or John Howard—who was pig iron mark 2, as we watched PV cell technology shipped overseas and then had to bring it back and pay for it. We have the ability here. Whether we look at this or at defence—wherever we look in manufacturing—Australia has a reputation globally for building high-quality, reliable products in niche markets. This is something we should be celebrating and grasping. We should not be sitting there, looking in the mirror and talking for 20 minutes about things that have nothing to do with the bill; we should actually go out there and back Australian workers. What I've seen through chairing this committee has been thousands of Australians of all different ages, in all different industries, wanting to have a go and wanting to actually get there and do things in this country. The one thing that stopped them has been not getting the backing from their government. Well, that changed. We often say that when you change the government you change the country, and that's what we did. We changed the government, and we now have a government that's out there backing you—every single one of you—to keep and grow your jobs and your businesses and, most importantly, to keep us at the forefront of technology and the ability that we have. No matter where you look, up and down the country, there are people out there who are designing, building and manufacturing things and trying to sell them offshore, when we could actually bring money in. Wouldn't it be nice if we backed our exporters, developers and manufacturers? That's what this is about. We made strong commitments to support workers in this country. We've done that. For the aged-care workers who were treated like nothing under the former government, we gave them a reasonable pay rise to value the work that they do. We do that in manufacturing as well. Making more things here is the key of this legislation—a belief that we should benefit from the manufacturing and export opportunities that are available here with the resources we have. Currently, with resources, we dig it, ship it and sell it. That's not the way we build a future. We shouldn't turn Australia into a big hole. We shouldn't be importing a finished product back. We should be looking at how we can build it here. Rather than taking a boatload of rock, let's take a boatload of products—high-value products that have been produced here by Australians and are sent overseas, where we can actually make a better financial investment and get a much bigger financial return. We are adding value to Australian resources by strengthening the country's economic security. It's so important that we build up resilience and security by shoring up and diversifying our supply chains. This will power the next generation of Australian manufacturing with cheaper, cleaner energy, creating long-lasting jobs and opportunities in every part of the country, especially in rural and regional Australia. A future made in Australia is something that we should be backing wholeheartedly. It's not about politics; it's about backing the Australian workers, designers, manufacturers and entrepreneurs. It's about backing the Australian economy. Rather than sit there and hope for the best, let's put our shoulders to the wheel and get out there and actually deliver what needs to be delivered for a better nation. 18:45 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. There are already some remarkable success stories when it comes to being made in Australia, and I want to highlight a couple of those right in my hometown of Wagga Wagga. Indeed, Tim Rose, who is a chemical engineer with degrees in both environmental science and business and has 25 years of industrial operations experience, seven years in re-refining, is responsible for overall group performance and management of Southern Oil Refining in the Riverina Intermodal Freight and Logistics Hub at Bomen in north Wagga Wagga. He also has a plant operating at Gladstone, the Northern Oil Refinery. This has produced 140 megalitres of waste lubricating oil processed. It's about 40 per cent of Australia's total waste produced. What they do is re-refine this waste and turn it into brand-new oil that can be used—indeed, bitumen as well. About 100 megalitres of base lubricating oil is produced and sold, which is about 40 per cent of Australian demand. Both plants are at capacity, and there's obviously then the need to expand. Forty megalitres of fuels and bitumen are produced, replacing imports. So that is a proud made-in-Australia story—$100 million in product sales. That is tremendous. As the member for McEwen comes and gives me the signed copy of Sovereign, smart, sustainable, I'll just put that where it needs to go. What we've seen from these particular plants at Wagga Wagga and Gladstone is job creation. The Wagga Wagga plant opened in 2001 with 35 jobs, Gladstone opened in 2014 with 32 jobs, and there are another five jobs at Brisbane. And this is creating opportunities. This is turning waste into a viable, usable product that is environmentally friendly and economically productive. It is a fantastic made-in-Australia success story. Then we have, not far away, Riverina Oils. In 2013, a state-of-the-art fully integrated oilseed crushing and refining plant was built with a crushing capacity of 200,000 tonnes of oilseed annually, certified non-GM canola. Each year, the plant at Wagga Wagga, north of the city in the industrial estate, has the potential to produce more than 80,000 tonnes of high-quality refined vegetable oil for the food industry and 110,000 tonnes of premium canola protein meal for the poultry, dairy and animal feed industry. I'm certainly very supportive of this. They're looking to increase canola storage bunker capacity at the Bomen site. The development application is being considered. It's a significant project. It's a priority project, and the New South Wales government recognises it as such. Hopefully that will proceed. Later this year, we'll get the go-ahead, the green light, for that wonderful project to enhance further the RIFL Hub. There's the special activation precinct, which is also taking advantage of Inland Rail. Why do I mention all this? Because it's not just Wagga Wagga—and Gladstone in Central Queensland where there's that wonderful deep port harbour. It's right around this nation that we have ingenuity, entrepreneurship and activity, and much of it was based on the good policies of the former coalition government. I know that I was directly responsible in part for introducing Tim Rose to Ken O'Dowd, the then member for Flynn, which then led to the Gladstone facility opening. I'm pleased to say Ken is in the parliament tonight being applauded and lauded for his work with the Nationals as the member for Flynn for four terms. He did a great job, and Colin Boyce is continuing that great work in Flynn to make sure that it is one of our great industrial electorates in the nation. When it comes to great industrial electorates in the nation, they need lots of power and they need lots of energy. Sadly, what we have seen from this government since May 2022, is power prices going up and power prices becoming unaffordable not just in Riverina. Mallee, Flynn, Capricornia, Parkes, New England, Cowper, Lyne—I could go on. It is so sad, to the point where this rush to achieve net zero—and you only have to look at what the Institute of Public Affairs says about this—there are many jobs at risk. Mr Neumann HVO I can't believe a National is quoting the— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Yes, I am quoting the IPA, because they correctly point out that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk because of the rush to renewables. I'm not against renewables—I'm not—but when you have a government which is putting renewables and the rush to have renewables ahead of everything else that has been sound and safe and reliable and affordable and accessible and available in the past, what we're going to see are blackouts. What we're going to see are shutdowns at aluminium factories and other manufacturing sites. Yet the Labor members come in here and pretend as though they have got these great ideas and great policies and legislative frameworks to put forward proposals that they say are going to have a future of manufacturing made in Australia. The fact is, it's not going to lead to a better future for this nation. It's not going to create more jobs in manufacturing. The previous Speaker, the member for McEwen, was talking about the coalition saying no, but here we have a government that say no to agriculture. They're saying no to live sheep exports out of Western Australia. And by doing so, they're going to place at risk the jobs of many families who've had that industry for many years. They're saying no to mining. They're saying no to fossil fuels, when we know that coal and iron ore and uranium and other exports that propped Australia up during COVID. Indeed, these exports have led the way for our balance of payments for many years, but the Treasurer, in his budget speech last year, couldn't even bring himself to say 'agriculture' and 'mining' and just said—wait for it—'the things we sell overseas'. He couldn't utter the word 'coal'. He couldn't utter the word 'gas'. He couldn't, for the first time in 25 years of Treasurers delivering budget speeches, mention the word 'infrastructure'. What we did when we were in government is we had a $120 billion infrastructure rollout. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 You didn't deliver much. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the member for Lyons rudely interrupting and interjecting, but he knows as a regional member that we rolled out phone towers not just to Labor seats. We also built roads in his electorate in Tasmania. We built roads. We built a dam. I know. There was a Dam started and finished—Scottsdale dam—in Tasmania under my time as Deputy Prime Minister. And I'll tell you what: the irrigation farmers in Tasmania were thrilled when it was completed. They were absolutely delighted. But will we see dam building under this Labor government? Dr Webster 281688 No. Mr McCORMACK 219646 No, of course we won't, Member for Mallee. Will we see anything happen in the infrastructure space? We'll see plenty of reviews. We'll see plenty of plans. We'll see plenty of ribbon-cutting for projects that were funded by the previous coalition government. But will we see a positive action plan of rollout, of delivery, by this Labor government? The answer to that is a resounding no. Members on the coalition side understand it, they know it, and they're worried about it. Moreover, our constituents are very concerned. When the member for Ballarat, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, put in place her 90-day review, we knew that this was just procrastination. We knew it was just Labor being Labor. Don't believe what Labor says it's going to do; believe what Labor does. It's never the same two things, as the member for Forde just said to me a few moments ago before I rose to speak on this bill. It is an important bill. Whilst the opposition is opposing this bill, it is important that we do talk about manufacturing and things being made in Australia, because it highlights again the sad reality that power prices, energy costs, are going through the roof for industry, for farmers, for households, for Australians. When we have a prime minister who promised on no fewer than 97 occasions before the May 2022 election that there was going to be a power price reduction of $275 reduction off your bill, that hoodwinked many Australians. They're not fooled now. They know, as all Australians do. All Australians who live in the real world know that life is so much more expensive now than it was before Labor came to office. Labor has pushed prices up across the board. I heard the member for McEwen also talking about housing and how difficult it was for Labor to build houses, but we've got a Labor government which is acceding to the requests of its state governments. In Victoria we've got an administration which is banning conventional gas onshore and offshore. We have the Jacinta Allan government, following on from the Daniel Andrews administration, which won't allow the timber industry. What do you build houses out of? What do you power houses with? It's so difficult to build a house anywhere in Australia, let alone in Victoria. The reshuffle is not going to fix anything. It's not going to put roofs over people's heads. It's not going to bring power prices down. Whilst ever you've got a government that is pushing this manic renewables drive over sensible, practical, available baseload power, you are going to have— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 Like nuclear! Mr McCORMACK 219646 I didn't quite hear you, Member for Lyons, but no doubt it was some— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 Like nuclear! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, yes, thanks. Absolutely. If we are to get to net zero, let's have a national, rational discussion about nuclear power. We've got uranium supplies—very bountiful supplies of yellowcake. Why wouldn't we have the national discussion instead of producing, as you've done, silly little memes with three-eyed fish from The Simpsons and the like? Why wouldn't we have a national, rational discussion about nuclear as an option? That's the trouble. Labor members knock and mock ideas, but let's have the discussion about having balance, about having options in our power mix. Let's not just go to wind and solar and wholly and solely go down that path, because let me tell you: there is a lot of prime agricultural land at the moment which is being taken up with projects that are then placed under state-significant development approvals et cetera, which are usurping local councils' ability even to look at projects. What they're doing is taking the best available farmland, which, I might add, grows our food and our fibre and puts food on our plates and clothes on our backs, not just for this nation but for many others. So the coalition is opposing this bill. We've put forward a sensible amendment, as you'd expect. As the shadow Treasurer has just said, this is a slogan in search of a policy: Future Made in Australia. It's an ill named bill, like most Labor policies. Labor's policies on workplace reform through flexibility are just run by the unions. We saw what John Setka did and said yesterday, and this policy is— (Time expired) 19:00 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm proud to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 because I believe strongly that we should be a country that makes things again. This is about making things here and growing our economy and creating good jobs. We won't be lectured by the coalition, who drove the car industry out of Australia, with all the jobs that were lost in the supply chains and all the small businesses that went to the wall because of the coalition's refusal to support the car industry. In country towns in my electorate of Ipswich, we suffered because the coalition dared the car industry to leave. We won't be lectured by those opposite, who promised a surplus in their first year of government and every year thereafter and failed to deliver one. We're engaging in responsible budget management, delivering surpluses and making sure that we put downward pressure on inflation, and we've almost halved inflation since we came to power. We know people are still doing it tough, and we're providing cost-of-living help. If those opposite had any integrity on this issue, they would support the cost-of-living measures that we're providing for Australians. We're getting these lectures about picking winners et cetera from those opposite. They're going to spend up to $600 billion of taxpayers' money to provide about 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy needs by 2050. Instead of providing relief now for people and investing in the cheapest, cleanest projects that we can undertake in terms of renewable energy, those opposite want to create some sort of Stalinist utopia: a nuclear energy plant controlled by the government. The party of Menzies has really fallen away. Now they're giving us lectures tonight about the fact that they're opposing legislation which is about a future made in Australia. We think that's the case because they didn't want to support jobs. Have you seen anything said today about the fact that wages are going up above inflation as a result of the announcements that we've made today and indeed the information that has been provided? Have you seen anything? No, not at all. You get no information from those opposite about investing in Australian jobs. You get platitudes and statements that somehow we're expending $315 billion too much. But it's about indexation support for pensions and a whole range of other things, which, if they were in government, they'd be doing anyway. So the inconsistency is rife and the hypocrisy is rank from those opposite. What we're doing with this legislation and what we're doing is investing in advanced manufacturing and making sure that we support good, well-paying jobs for people in industries that are critical. My home city of Ipswich grew up on limestone, the coalmines and railways. We now have an aerospace industry that provides so many jobs locally, with Boeing, TAE, Raytheon and a whole range of jobs in the defence industry. We've got advanced manufacturing when it comes to meat processing. There's JBS at Dinmore and Kilcoy Global Foods up in Kilcoy in the Somerset Region. There are a whole range of things and really big numbers of people working in these places. We need advanced manufacturing in places like Springfield and the like. These are opportunities. We've got so many chances here to create a new Ipswich, a new Queensland and a new Australia. That's what this legislation is all about. It's about making sure we've got an economic plan for the future. Those opposite have got nothing in this area. We've got the ingredients, the capability, the resources and the ingenuity. We've got the natural resources to produce new products and research technology. We've hit the ground running when it comes to the $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia initiative. That's real money that we put on the table here. Those opposite claim that it's some sort of Orwellian piece of legislation. It's not Orwellian in any way at all. It's real money for initiatives to assist business. If those opposite claim that we should be assisting business or let the market run, I say to them that I was in business for 20 years before I got elected to this place and I know how to run a business. I employed people. I know how important it is to create jobs and give good wages to workers. One of the best things I ever did as an employer was tell people they had a job and give people pay rises. That's what helped us, because they were strong, they were productive, they were innovative and creative and they added to our business. That's what we need to do in this case—create good, well-paid jobs. That's critical. We need to educate our people. Those opposite can't even support fee-free TAFE—500,000 people have taken it up in this country. We need more people in TAFE and more people at university. It's absolutely critical. We need to boost our sovereign capability and create a pipeline of well-paying jobs, especially in outer-suburban and regional electorates like mine. We need to embed innovation, and we're seeing that. We're backing science, and I've seen that myself in my electorate. It started with our $392 million Industry Growth Program, which just delivered its first round of advice and capital support for small firms to help turn great ideas into growing businesses, supporting everything from battery making through to blueberry farming. It will grow the pipeline of investment-ready businesses for the centrepiece of a plan, which is the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, or NRF, which those opposite can't bring themselves to support, but I know that the businesses I speak to really support it. This is co-investment. It's about value-adding to our natural strengths and comparative advantages across seven national priorities through a mix of loans, guarantees and equity injections. One local project which I'm looking at is in the Lockyer Valley. It used to be in my electorate. It's now in the electorate of Wright. It's in the Lockyer Valley food bowl, just west of my electorate. It plans to process locally grown vegetables into canned, frozen and dehydrated food, supporting hundreds of local jobs and using renewable energy to power its operations. I understand it's the only prime industry value-added project that's applied to the fund to date. It's something of which I am very proud and I've been working with the local business in relation to it. Our government has huge ambitions for Australia to be a big player in science and technology. That's why we've released Australia's first National Quantum Strategy, to support an industry estimated to be worth $2.2 billion, directly employing 8,700 people by 2030. As part of this we've partnered with the Queensland government to invest almost $1 billion into PsiQuantum to build the world's first commercial-scale quantum computer in Brisbane in my home state. PsiQuantum will create up to 400 highly skilled local jobs, help crowdfunding and investment in local companies and help open up new digital and advanced tech supply chain opportunities. It's an exciting initiative and it's generated huge interest in South-East Queensland. Those opposite oppose it. They oppose all that opportunity. They're Neanderthals when it comes to this stuff. Springfield City Group in my electorate are keen to work with the Albanese and Queensland governments and PsiQuantum to establish a quantum tech training centre within Springfield's knowledge precinct. This would be a focal point for local universities, TAFEs and PsiQuantum to attract and retain students and deliver local, high-skilled, well-paid jobs and economic growth in the western corridor, west of Brisbane, while supporting our defence needs, given the proximity to the RAAF base at Amberley. It's a real game changer for our region, and that's why I'm so excited about the opportunities here. On a related note, we're also working on a national robotics strategy which will deliver and drive an industry that's already contributing $18 billion to our economy. We're looking to support safe, inclusive uptake of technologies like AI. But, to fully unlock the potential of the NRF and areas like quantum computing and AI, we need to tackle the current skill shortages and skill-up the digital tradies for the future. To that end, we've invested heavily in fee-free TAFE, but those opposite can't bring themselves to support it. That's why something like the Quantum Tech training centre is such a vital and viable enabler. I want to make sure people in the outer suburbs in my electorate get access to the tools for success in manufacturing. That's why programs like the NRF and the Industry Growth Fund exist: to support growth of local businesses that can do just that. Capral, in my electorate, is a world-beating firm and a terrific example of this. It was great to have the Minister for Industry and Science for a tour of their factory in Bundamba last year. Capral produces aluminium for a wide range of products for local customers and for export, from window frames to truck beds. But aluminium is also important in our transition to a net zero future, as it is used in frames and found in solar panels being installed across the country. Another example, just outside of my electorate, in the electorate of Oxley—the Speaker's electorate—is the Graphene Manufacturing Group, based in Ridgelands, a really innovative firm at the forefront of our national critical minerals and Australian made battery industry. It employs more than 40 people and is experimenting in developing batteries that charge 70 times faster and have three times the battery life of lithium batteries. On this front, the government recently launched Australia's first National Battery Strategy to harness our world-leading expertise and build a battery manufacturing industry, creating more high-skilled, high-paid jobs. The strategy outlines how Australia will drive battery innovation and scale up manufacturing of battery packs and cells and recycling to help our transition to net zero. And recently I visited the Queensland University of Technology's advanced battery facility pilot plant and the Queensland Energy Storage Technology, or QEST, hub at Banyo, in Brisbane, where the Prime Minister launched the battery strategy. These are some exciting existing examples of industry led energy storage research and a terrific demonstration of our ability to manufacture batteries and innovate in South-East Queensland. Going forward, QUT are keen to establish an Australian battery industrialisation centre in Swanbank in my electorate of Blair, and I'm hopeful that an opportunity will be provided to participate in the National Battery Strategy and for the government to support good projects like this in my community through the Future Made in Australia initiative. Lastly, medical science is another huge growth area in my electorate. Springfield City Group is working with a range of partners to develop the Springfield BioPark, an innovation precinct dedicated to advanced manufacturing of high-value medicines, like vaccine and blood product. This is an exciting initiative. Recently the Minister for Industry and Science and I visited Southern RNA in Springfield, a biotech start-up dedicated to mRNA manufacturing that's developing a range of life-saving vaccines and drugs. The minister and his department have been working with Southern RNA as part of our RNA blueprint so that we can develop high-skilled jobs and economic benefits for Ipswich and for all of Queensland in advanced medical manufacturing. This is a reality in the United States, the European Union, Japan and South Korea, and we need to do it in Australia. This bill is absolutely critical. We had such a wasted decade under those opposite in all the areas I've talked about. They abandoned the field entirely. The Future Made in Australia legislation brings together our policy work in this space. It's an effective, practical strategy for Australia to seize this opportunity in energy transition. This is about unlocking private sector investment to build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy that creates secure, well-paid jobs. It embeds into law a disciplined and rigorous approach that will govern Future Made in Australia investments. The package does a number of very important things. It's absolutely critical. This is about harnessing the talents of our people. It's about the incredible natural resources we've got, about things we have an opportunity to make here in Australia. I know this is possible because I've seen it already happening, and I've outlined some of this stuff here today. Right now, despite what those opposite think, the world is moving strongly and quickly towards renewable energy. As the sunniest, windiest continent on Earth, this is our big chance. More than anywhere on Earth, we are poised to gain new jobs, new industries and new skills, if only we capture that with imagination and innovation and create opportunities in our regions and suburbs. We need a government that is prepared to step up and do its part, to fund apprenticeships, to attract investment and to build infrastructure—unlike those opposite—and to boost industries and back ideas. That's why a Future Made in Australia is good for this economy, it's good for our community, it's good for jobs, it's good for wages and, particularly, it's good for my local community. 19:14 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Like the Sorcerer's Apprentice of 1940, the Mickey Mouse Labor Party has picked up the fabled and treasured 'made in Australia' logo and waved it like a magic wand at their dog's breakfast of policies, thinking the spin of made in Australia will secure public trust. But even the best magician can't fix Labor's policy failures and the resultant economic hardships of hardworking Australians. The 'Australian made' logo represents the pride, trust and hard work of the nation's manufacturers. It is a mark of quality that resonates deeply with Australians, reflecting our commitment to valuing and supporting local businesses and communities, so much so that, in happier economic times, shoppers will pay extra per 100 grams to buy the Australian product. The coalition is proud of the way we strengthen the Australian made logo in one of our strongest industries, food manufacturing, to compel retailers to show the percentage of Australian made food produce on supermarket shelves. It is profoundly troubling that the Labor Party, given its track record of policy failures and devastating impact on Australian businesses and communities, is exploiting this iconic phrase for political gain. This act of appropriation is a betrayal of trust. When lame duck US President Joe Biden stood in front of slogans on the wall, like 'Future Made in America', you understand where the Prime Minister took his policy narrative from. Labor's approach to energy policy, water policy, biosecurity, taxation and industrial relations, to name a few, has created an environment of uncertainty and instability, failing productivity and plummeting business confidence. Over the past two years, we have witnessed an alarming rate of business closures: 19,000 businesses have shut their doors. This is not just a statistic. It represents the dreams and livelihoods of tens of thousands of Australians, mostly mum and dad venturers. Recently, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's latest small business sentiment survey indicated that 57 per cent of regional businesses are looking to close their doors. With many decades in the game surviving the global financial crisis and COVID-19, business owners in my electorate say they are at breaking point. Current and imminent business closures are a direct consequence of Labor's policies, which have driven up inflation, interest rates and operating costs, making it increasingly difficult for businesses, particularly small and regional ones, to survive. Labors penchant for a government controlled economy and for picking billionaire winners has made our economic climate hostile to enterprise, innovation, growth and opportunity. Labor's energy policies have led to skyrocketing prices, with no realistic solutions on offer—$325 spread over four quarters is not the permanent $275 energy relief promised 97 times before the election. Reliable and affordable energy solutions are essential to support Australian industries and protect jobs, yet Labor's reckless rush to renewables lacks a coherent or realistic transition plan. Instead, we have an energy eyesore, a landscape exclusively of wind turbines and solar panels, supposedly backed by Labor's labyrinth of 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. The rush is on due to political targets, which will require seven gigawatts of wind and solar to be installed every year, a more than fivefold increase on the 1.3 gigawatts reached in the last reporting years. Labor's labyrinth and energy eyesore has increased costs and damaged performance and confidence in our agricultural sector and food security, as transmission infrastructure is rammed through communities without care for social licence and with heartbreaking outcomes, particularly in my electorate of Mallee. Marcia McIntyre from Kanya in my electorate has firsthand experience of Labor ignoring her time and time again. The supposed community consultation doesn't count for a thing. Marcia says: We have put in hundreds of submissions, surveys, pinned maps and been to every single drop-in session. We have been extremely clear at every stage that we will not host wind, solar, transmission, batteries…we just want to grow food and fibre. Only to end up in a tier 1 area! Our community has been completely ignored even though we genuinely and extensively engaged, wasting so much of our time. Under Labor, 90 per cent of our 24/7 baseload power will be forced out of the system over the next 10 years and is not being replaced by Labor's renewables-only plan. Labor is switching off a reliable system without a reliable substitute. Supposedly we can rely on an unprecedented experimental mix of grid-scale batteries, pumped hydro, and hydrogen. Labor deride nuclear, gas and coal and are therefore jeopardising the very foundation of our prosperity—energy security. In fact, Treasury have confirmed that gas, blue hydrogen, carbon capture and nuclear are not included in Labor's national interest framework. Labor's plans insult hardworking coal industry families in the Hunter region by pretending that somehow solar panel manufacturing will, firstly, be viable against heavily subsidised Chinese and American competition and, secondly, provide the same number of jobs that is currently provided by the coal industry. It will not, whereas maintaining baseload power and therefore transferable skills at Liddell certainly would. Recently, billionaire Andrew Forrest stepped back from his ambitious green hydrogen targets, shedding some 700 jobs in the sector and revealing the fragility of conceptual green hydrogen as a so-called solution for Australians, their businesses and the economy. Labor's miscalculation of previous taxpayer money has been wasted on propping up the green dreams of billionaires like Andrew Forrest, doing little to advance our environmental goals. Yet, in this bill, Labor want to double down on corporate welfare for billionaires who are as bad at picking winners as they are. It is imperative that the government reassesses its approach and stops wasting money on unproven technologies. To make matters worse, Labor's destruction of our future being made in Australia extends beyond energy policy. When you consider tax and industrial relations, Labor's heavy-handed tax policies have stifled entrepreneurship and innovation, placing an excessive burden on businesses already struggling with higher operational costs. The government's $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia announcement in the budget, again, makes no progress on the list of demands our manufacturers are actually making. Manufacturers need better business conditions, not more government intervention. For instance, take Steve Timmis, a producer from the successful Fossey's Gin brand in Mildura in my electorate of Mallee. Steve says: In the last 12 month period my sector is down about 40 per cent gross revenue. Additionally, our costs rose 20 per cent. Everything has gone up, electricity, wages, super(annuation). That is a 60% difference on where we have been. I had over 15 employees but they no longer work for me, I ensured they found other jobs before they left. It's a sad decision. Labor's industrial relations policies have further compounded pressure on business by creating a rigid and adversarial environment that hinders productivity and flexibility. This week, the mining industry says that recent IR changes have handed the mining sector over to the unions, with BHP forced into their first union collective agreement in over a decade. According to CreditorWatch, the overall business failure rate has jumped by nearly 10 per cent over the last 12 months alone. Almost half of the nation's small businesses considered closing down in the past year, and, as I said earlier, more than half—57 per cent—were in regional Australia, where, frankly, there are very few large businesses. The most alarming situation is the one facing Australia's $150 billion food and agriculture sector, a cornerstone of our economy and a vital part of our national identity. This industry, which spans from horticulture, viticulture, livestock, cropping, forestry and seafood production through to food manufacturing and retail sales, is in crisis. The Australian Food and Grocery Council says the profitability of the food and beverage manufacturing industries is in a downward trend, falling from $8 billion per annum in 2009-10 to $5 billion a decade later. While the sector hopes to double food manufacturing by 2030, it fears imports will see the end of high value added products made in Australia. Labor's policies under the guise of their Future Made in Australia campaign have unfortunately and most ironically neglected the suppliers to our largest food manufacturers: our food producers. Labor's neglect has manifested in rising regulations, the unfair biosecurity levy, surging energy costs, industrial relations obligations and increased tax imposts, strangling the very lifeblood of the agriculture industry. At the Australian Global Food Forum in Brisbane, former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett highlighted how government relations stifle innovation, hinder industry growth and destroy employment opportunities. Australia has quietly become a food superpower over the past decade. Local farmers have increased their output by more than 90 per cent, as Anthony Pratt recently stated. The Australian food production industry now represents six per cent of our gross domestic product. Over the past 10 years, 1,200 food factories have been built across the nation and food exports have more than doubled, from $29 billion to $59 billion, with beef exports to China growing by 200 per cent. Mr Pratt, speaking at the same 12th annual Global Food Forum in Brisbane, emphasised: 'While tech gets all the love, food provides the jobs.' In a decade, Australia's farmers have produced 91 per cent more output. These achievements underscore the potential and resilience of our food and agriculture sector. When you consider that the Made in Australia logo has historically been most recognisable in the textile and agriculture industries, the two make for a great contrast. According to the Australia Institute, Australians have now passed the USA as the No. 1 consumers of textiles, buying 56 clothing items per year, notably at a value of $13 on average compared to $24 in the USA and $40 in the UK. Textiles and clothing made up almost 12 per cent of our GDP in 1965 but have now been slashed sixfold to around two per cent. You have to wonder whether Labor's plan for agriculture is to head into the same decline as Australian textiles. In stark contrast to Labor's failures, the coalition offers a comprehensive and balanced energy strategy that prioritises cheaper, cleaner and consistent power. As a start, we will not spend $13.7 billion on corporate welfare for experimental green hydrogen and critical minerals. Second, we will wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses from getting ahead. We will condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing mining, jobs and entrepreneurialism. Third, we will remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on business. Fourth, we will provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all because Australians should keep more of what they earn. Fifth, we will deliver a competition policy which gives consumers and smaller businesses a fair go, not lobbyists and big corporations. And sixth, we will ensure Australians have more affordable and reliable energy. Our economic plan, with its tried and tested principles, will restore competitiveness and rebuild economic confidence. It is time for Labor to recognise the damage their policies have caused. Australian businesses and manufacturers don't want smoke and mirrors. The magic of effective governance lies in making decisions that benefit all Australians, and that is precisely what the coalition will deliver. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Petition: Environmental Conservation 74 19:29 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin People all across Australia are horrified by the climate and environmental impact of expanding our fossil fuel industry. This horror can lead to anger, disengagement, denial, disruptive protests or loss of faith in our system. But some of us still have hope that we can address the decarbonisation challenge using the tools we have. Today I will be tabling this Greenpeace petition signed by 440,000 people, asking the government to protect the environment from Woodside's gas expansion plans. This is the largest petition presented during this parliament—more than double the next-largest, which had 185,000 signatures. In fact, according to the Parliamentary Library, this petition appears to be the fifth-largest petition ever presented to this parliament. This is significant. Instead of protest, anger, or disempowerment, nearly half a million people are respectfully using one of the tools of our democracy to be heard. So why is this so important to so many people across Australia? Scott Reef is a fragile tower of coral reef 200 kilometres off the WA coast. It has a circular reef to the north and a horseshoe-shaped reef to the south, joined by a large, deep lagoon. It's teeming with life: sharks, sea snakes, rays, sawfish, seabirds, fish, invertebrates, coral and sponges. It's one of a series of isolated atolls along the north-western Australian coast that was once a massive barrier reef like the Great Barrier Reef. There are at least 29 species of marine mammals on Scott Reef along with 41 species of birds and almost a thousand species of fish, with many more amazing and unique animals, some of which haven't been found anywhere else. It's a snack stop for migrating birds and critical habitat for endangered pygmy blue whales who are migrating and foraging up and down the WA coast. Genetically unique and endangered green sea turtles swim vast kilometres specifically to reach their birthplace, the tiny Sandy Islet on Scott Reef, to lay their eggs. Because it's 200 kilometres offshore, we haven't spoiled it yet. There aren't many places like this left on earth. Australia's largest untapped conventional gas reserve, the Browse Basin, lies directly under Scott Reef. This gas is trapped under the tower of coral, which has grown and adapted over millions of years supporting this fragile ecosystem. Woodside's Browse project, which will feed its Burrup Hub expansion, creates huge risks for this fragile ecosystem. Woodside plans to drill up to 50 wells and pump the gas long distances to shore. This project creates huge environmental risk and damage, with drill sites so close to the habitats of endangered species and the ever-present risk of a catastrophic oil spill which could cover the turtle nesting shoreline and kill significant numbers of marine animals. There's also a risk of subsidence once the gas is removed. Imagine a thousand green sea turtles paddling hundreds of kilometres to return to their birthplace only to find that it's now underwater and they can't lay their eggs. They don't have a plan B. The Browse Basin would feed gas to the proposed Burrup Hub. It's really hard to understand the scale of this proposed project not only for its environmental impact but also for its climate impact. Woodside is seeking an expansion and extension to the processing facility at Burrup Hub through to 2070—yes, 2070. This is a plan to be processing fossil fuels 20 years after the world needs to reach net zero. The emissions from the extraction, processing and burning of the Burrup Hub gas would be more than 12 times Australia's annual emissions—one project responsible for 12 years of all of Australia's emissions. Think of all the effort we're putting into decarbonising while this one project would overshadow all of our efforts. Proceeding with Browse will make it harder for Australia and the world to reach their decarbonisation targets. Woodside is seeking approval for this massive project in stages. The WA EPA is still assessing part of it, and the environment minister will then have the opportunity to consider it. So many of our political tools in our system are ill equipped to deal with long-term threats like environmental damage and climate change, but we have to use the tools we have. In receiving this petition, the environment minister will have the opportunity to show half a million people that their hope is not misplaced and that our democratic system can be used to drive positive, long-term thinking and change. I urge the minister to listen and prioritise nature and our future over Woodside's profits. I seek leave to table Greenpeace's 'stop Woodside's drill' petition, signed by 440,000 Australians. Leave granted. The SPEAKER 53517 The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders. North Macedonia, Turkiye 75 19:34 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Over the parliamentary break, I was busy doorknocking and meeting constituents to discuss Labor's cost-of-living relief. I also had the opportunity to travel to North Macedonia. This was my second trip to North Macedonia as the chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for the Republic of North Macedonia. Relations between Australians and Macedonians began in the 19th century, when workers arrived in places like Kalgoorlie and Broken Hill during the Australian gold rush. This connection deepened after the Second World War, when waves of migrants left war-torn Europe in search of a better life in Australia. Today, over 100,000 Australians claim Macedonian birth or heritage, and I am confident in saying their influence has made Australia a much better place to live in. During this trip, I visited the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia and met with MPs from the North Macedonia parliamentary group for Australia and New Zealand. We discussed ways to strengthen the people-to-people links between our nations. I also met with their new president, Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova. The president and I have much in common. Apart from both being proud Christians and having a deep love for North Macedonia, we are both the first women to hold our respective positions. I am the first female to represent the division of Holt and she is the first female President of North Macedonia. We also share a deep passion for reading classic literature and had a long conversation about the works of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen. Continuing my trip, I met with the mayor of Bitola, the Australian consul-general in North Macedonia and Archbishop Stefan Veljanovski and visited dozens of the 1,200 churches and monasteries scattered across the country. I had the opportunity to visit Turkiye during my parliamentary break. Turkiye has long been the crossroads of civilisation, where East meets West. With Istanbul having been the capital of both the Orthodox and Islamic worlds at different times, it is a city carved with thousands of years of history. The Hagia Sophia was built by Byzantine Emperor Justinian as the cathedral of Constantinople and served as a religious and spiritual centre of the Orthodox church. After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, it was converted into a mosque by Mehmed the Conqueror. I visited the Grand Bazaar, which was also built after Mehmed's conquest. It is thought to be one of the oldest indoor markets in the world. It is a maze of over 61 undercover streets that sell gold, jewellery, furniture, carpet, leather, fabrics, clothes, incense and food, among many other items. In Turkiye I also had the opportunity to visit a place of great significance to Australians, Anzac Cove in Gallipoli. It was here in 1915 that ANZAC troops, alongside the French and British, fought against the Ottoman Empire to open a new southern front. On these shores at Gallipoli, over 12,100 men lay down their lives for this cause. As I looked up at the towering cliffs and walked along the beach, I could only imagine the bravery of our ANZACs as they charged through barbed wire, with Turkish machine-guns raining down on them from above. Gallipoli has become a defining moment in the history of both Australia and New Zealand, embodying the qualities that have come to define both nations: courage, bravery and mateship. The landing at Gallipoli is an event we commemorate each year on 25 April, a day of remembrance and reflection for the sacrifices made by the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Visiting this site was a profound privilege and one I will carry with me for the rest of my life. Lest we forget. Wannon Electorate: Panmure Football Club, Wannon Electorate: Health 76 19:39 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise tonight to congratulate the Panmure Football Netball Club for their advocacy to get new female-friendly change rooms for their club. I was very fortunate to be at the ground on Saturday—it was a magnificent spring day, or a magnificent winter day that felt like you were in spring—when we were able to open this new facility: showers, bathrooms, changing rooms for both the visiting netballers and the home netballers. It was wonderful to see all the Panmure netballers and the visiting team from Allensford there to be able to open those new family friendly change rooms. Those change rooms came about owing to a $500,000 investment by the coalition government, and it was very pleasing to be there with Councillor Daniel Meade—a bit of a local legend with Panmure—to be able to say a few words. Once again, I re-emphasise how important the coalition knows it is to invest into our local infrastructure, particularly when it comes to investing in facilities which help grassroots female participation, whether it be in netball, cricket or AFL. Hats off again to the Panmure Football Netball Club for their perseverance and advocacy in making sure that they've now got first-class female changing rooms. During the break I was also very pleased to welcome Senator Anne Ruston, the shadow health minister, to Wannon. Senator Ruston came with me to Ararat, where we were advocating for a new headspace facility. We met with the local hospital there—a wonderful organisation, One Red Tree, which is already doing fantastic work in the mental health space—and we began the advocacy piece that we need to make sure that we can get a headspace for Ararat because, sadly, some of the youth mental health challenges that Ararat and the community around Ararat are facing show that there is a serious need for us to get a headspace in Ararat. I also took Senator Ruston to Hamilton, where the coalition government invested in a new headspace facility. Unfortunately, that facility is taking far too long to be finalised. I met with the assistant minister, Emma McBride, and we got all the relevant groups together to meet in Hamilton with Senator Ruston to find out why it is taking so long to get these headspace buildings up and running. We need to learn what is going wrong so that we can make sure that we can get our headspace buildings up in place so we can provide the services that we need to our local communities. Services have been provided while we are waiting for the building to open but we still need to be able to get the process quickened. It's one thing that I reach across the aisle to ask that the government do, and that is to make sure that when headspaces are announced and funded, like Hamilton was, that they then move quickly to make sure that the building is finalised and the services can be provided under the roof of that building. We were told that it would be completed by the end of this year—by November-December—and my hope is that that will be the case. Another issue that I had to deal with over the winter break was the Victorian state government seeking to amalgamate health networks right across Victoria, including in Western Victoria. Two of the networks in Wannon that they are looking to amalgamate are primarily funded by the federal government. I wrote to the health minister to say that he should oppose any amalgamation of our local health services. Can I say to the local community: your Hands Off Our Hospital campaign was incredibly effective because the Victorian state government has pulled back from forced amalgamations. But that's not the end of the battle, because the worry is that they are going to do it in an underhanded way and they are going to seek to achieve what they need to do not by forcing amalgamations but by doing it through bureaucratic processes. (Time expired) Aston Electorate: Tilly Aston Community Awards 77 19:45 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston Recently I had the tremendous honour of hosting the inaugural Tilly Aston Community Awards. Pioneered in recognition of Tilly Aston, one of Australia's most influential disability advocates, the awards champion those in my community who embody and foster Tilly Aston's spirit, empathy, courage and persistence and those who inspire and lead every day. I was thrilled that the awards provided me with an opportunity to learn about and chat with people from these fantastic organisations and individuals within my community. In recognition of their contributions, I would love to share a little about some of the recipients of these awards. Life in an aged-care facility or retirement village can sometimes become quite isolating and lonely, and this is a problem which is being solved by the fantastic volunteers at the Inner Wheel Club of Boronia. The team serves residents by brightening their days with regular morning tea catch-ups and special birthday and family celebrations. That's why I was proud to present them with the Local Hospitality Champion Award. They were very happy about that too. I knew it was crucial to recognise work being done within the mental health sphere, so the honour of receiving the Mental Health and Wellbeing Champion Award went to an organisation called Ben's Place. This is a wonderful family run organisation tragically born out of the founder's son's death by suicide. Ben's Place is now thriving in their ability to provide pantry services to the community, helping over 500 families in the community weekly. Another terrific group which was recognised was Volunteer for Knox, who won the Connecting Communities Champion Award. Run by two very dedicated volunteers, Volunteer for Knox recruits volunteers from across our community and directs them to suitable organisations in Knox, which is brilliant work. The last in our group awards was the Sporting Champion Award, which I proudly presented to the Ferntree Gully Tennis Club for their All Abilities Tennis Program. This program promotes inclusion and participation in tennis for those in our community who live with physical and intellectual disabilities. It has been such a huge success in terms of take-up. People love it and rave about it. I also presented numerous individual awards on the night. One of them was our Leadership Award, which went to the most celebrated, wonderful Lillie Giang for her work in building the charity organisation Feed One Feed All. Feed One Feed All, or FOFA, as it has become known, is a group of committed, passionate locals doing all they can to ensure nobody goes hungry. Lillie founded FOFA following the destructive storms of 2021 that so affected the hills community. It's now a thriving charity that feeds and assists many families throughout Knox. My staff and I have had the pleasure of visiting FOFA, and I must say that the food they have on offer to the community is not only delicious but nutritious and comforting too. Our next award was the Innovation Award, which was presented to Ross Black. Ross is the CEO of the Knox Gymnastics Club, where he played a monumental role in the movement of training to the new innovative facilities at the State Basketball Centre in Wantirna South. Ross has spent countless hours in network meetings, liaising, fine-tuning and advocating for all stakeholders to deliver the facilities at Knox Gymnastics Club. I want to say congratulations and well done to Ross. Our Rising Star Award was presented to Neethu Kushalappa for her fantastic work as a CPR first aid trainer and assessor. Neethu has spent years supporting people across Melbourne in the aged-care and disability sectors and is a regular volunteer as well. Sarah Anderson was the recipient of the Outstanding Young Achiever Award. As a 10-year-old and a First Nations person, Sarah proudly became a student leader at her school and assisted in the process of writing her school's acknowledgement of country, teaching the other students the process. I want to congratulate Sarah as well. One of the loudest cheers of the night was for Gayle Dyer, the winner of our Local Hero Award. Gayle founded the organisation Share Space, a food and essentials relief charity that assists over 600 people monthly in Knox. The Volunteer of the Year Award went to Christopher Guinane for his work volunteering as president of the Knox Toy Library. The toy library ensures that all children have toys to take home each night, and is well loved in Aston. It was an honour meeting and presenting Kym Doove with our Carer of the Year Award. (Time expired) Flinders Electorate: Paris Olympic Games 78 19:50 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders With Australia bringing home its biggest ever medal haul from the 2024 Paris Olympics, I want to pay tribute to four remarkable sportswomen from my electorate of Flinders—Eileen Cikamatana, in weightlifting; Emily Whitehead in artistic gymnastics; and Caitlin Parker and Tyla McDonald in boxing. All proudly donned the green and gold on the biggest sporting stage in the world. The Mornington Peninsula well and truly punches above its weight when it comes to our contribution to the boxing ring. It was incredible to see our local community rally around Tyla and Caitlin, from Peninsula Boxing in Mornington, as they competed in Paris. Caitlin competed in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, making it to the quarterfinals and, in a heartbreaking turn of events, losing on a points decision. She returned in 2024 as the only Australian female boxer to participate in more than one Olympic Games, this time as captain of the Australian boxing team. Caitlin contributed to the record medal tally by bringing home a bronze medal, making her the first Australian woman to win a medal in the discipline of boxing. For Tyla, boxing was originally meant to be a means of improving her fitness to play netball but it was not long before she took over boxing as the main game. Her unwavering ferocity in the boxing ring garnered immense support back home, with almost every shop window in Somerville adorned with a poster of our hometown hero. Eileen is one of many residents of the Flinders electorate who has moved from another country to make the Mornington Peninsula her home. I greeted 54 new Australians who are Mornington Peninsula residents just the other day. Having previously represented Fiji in weightlifting, Eileen was proud to wear the green and gold at the Paris Olympics. She shared with the local magazine Peninsula Essence after winning gold for Australia at the 2022 Commonwealth Games: The gold medal was my way of showing my enormous gratitude for everything Australia has done for me … The only way that I can repay this is to win for Australia. Competing in the women's 81 kilo division, Eileen placed fourth, making her the best performing Australian weightlifter at the Paris Olympics. Although she only narrowly missed out on a medal, the hearts and minds of all the residents of Flinders were with her. After making her Olympic debut in Tokyo, Rosebud local Emily Whitehead proudly represented Australia in the women's artistic gymnastics team in Paris this year. Emily did us proud, demonstrating her skill in a highly technical discipline which rewards precision and great athletic strength. The strong performance of the women's team representing Australia at the Olympics reflects the depth of female sporting talent that our country has to offer. Thirteen of the 18 gold medals won by the Australian team were taken home by female athletes in this year's games. The Mornington Peninsula has much to be proud of in fostering the sporting ambitions of these women. Nationally, women and girls are underrepresented in organised sport, with only 32 per cent of females who are 15 years and above participating in weekly sporting activities, compared to 49 per cent of their male counterparts, according to the 2022 National sport and physical activity participation report. This is not always the trend on the Peninsula. Following the success of the Matildas at the 2023 Women's World Cup, there was an 18 per cent increase in girls participation in soccer nationally. Seeing female athletes achieve on the world stage provides vital inspiration to young girls to get involved in sport at a local level. I see this far and wide across my electorate, where girls are just as eager and just as capable, if not more so, than the boys. This grassroots participation is not only good for the health and wellbeing of adolescent girls and women but also lays the foundation for our future Olympic champions. Young Australians watching our female athletes compete in Paris are provided with powerful role models not just on the sporting field but in every aspect of their lives. Their traits of resilience and teamwork and overcoming adversity are universal. As Caitlin Parker shared: There's always been something in me that wants to prove to myself and to everyone else that I'm good enough and that being female isn't going to stop me. The remarkable results of these athletes are also testament to the local sporting clubs and organisations across the Mornington Peninsula. Tyla and Caitlin trained at Peninsula Boxing in Mornington and Eileen at the Oceania Weightlifting Institute in Dromana. Those are just two of the many incredible sporting associations within my electorate. I am enormously proud of the way in which the people of the Flinders electorate rallied behind these great women to support them in their endeavours. They did so not only in helping to fundraise but in celebrating their success and recognising the enormous commitment and hard work that got them to Paris. I hope the success of Tyla and Caitlin in the boxing ring, Emily in gymnastics and Eileen in weightlifting inspire young people, especially girls, across our community to be what they see and to follow in their footsteps. Corangamite Electorate: Volunteers 79 19:55 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Volunteers are the backbone of our communities. Without volunteers, meals would not be delivered to those in need, kids would not have sports coaches, and young parents would not get the opportunity to connect at their local playgroups. Volunteers touch every part of our community. The Albanese government understands this and the exceptional work they do. That's why each year we give out volunteer grants to worthy organisations. In the latest round, there were 25 successful grant recipients, receiving $66,000, across my electorate of Corangamite. To honour the work of these volunteers, I made a commitment to meet every one of them and personally say thank you. I've just completed my mission and visited all 25 in the past five weeks. This recognition is important because—you may not be aware of this—since COVID there has been a significant decrease in volunteering across the nation, and, as a consequence, community groups are struggling to fill the roles needed to keep local clubs and groups flourishing. These groups go some way to help addressing that gap. The funding can support a wide range of critical needs, from purchasing small portable equipment to covering the cost of training volunteers, reimbursing fuel expenses and conducting background checks for those working with vulnerable people. I would like to take this opportunity now to acknowledge some of the amazing volunteer groups. Queenscliffe Neighbourhood House is a much-loved part of the Borough of Queenscliffe. I visited their centre to thank them for their contribution to our community and congratulate them on receiving a volunteer grant of $2,000 to help this dedicated group to purchase essential equipment and training. Then there's the 3216 Connect Op Shop in Grovedale, which is not just an op shop but an awesome place where people in a community hub care about our most vulnerable. I'm so proud to have helped them secure $1,000 through the Corangamite volunteer grant to train their volunteers, who work hard to help ease the financial burden for those most in need. The op shop offers fresh fruit and vegetables for those who cannot afford to put food on the table, and it provides warm blankets and clothes for our region's most vulnerable. Then there's the Geelong Ostomy group, who I visited last week to congratulate them on being awarded a Corangamite volunteer grant to purchase first-aid equipment. Their dedication and tireless efforts make such a difference, and it is truly inspiring. Anam Cara is a beautiful place in Waurn Ponds that provides local families with palliative care choices and end-of-life care. I thank them for their contribution to our community, and I thank the volunteers, who recently received a volunteer grant of $1,500 for training. Their dedication brings comfort and dignity to those in their most vulnerable moments, and their selfless service is deeply appreciated. These are all examples of essential work, and it's often carried out by volunteers who go unrecognised. Yet I'm continually inspired by their unwavering drive and dedication to our community. They ask for no recognition and quietly go about their roles with no fanfare, making a significant impact behind the scenes. They ensure that our sports are played, those in need are cared for, and our communities are safe and protected. A volunteer grant represents more than just financial support. It is a token of our appreciation, a recognition of the countless hours volunteers have invested, and a symbol of our shared commitment to the causes they champion. These grants are a way to say thank you—thank you for your passion, for your dedication and for the positive impact you make every single day. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 79 NOTICES Presentation 79

Tuesday, 13 August 2024

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Cost of Living: Youth 84 16:00 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein The cost of living affects us all, but it's different for Australia's young people. Affected by uncertainty, inequality and instability, they have their whole lives ahead of them yet they have no sense of what their quality of life will be. Last week I hosted an event with members of Goldstein's Gen Zoe youth movement, at the Brix Bar in Brighton. It was a great turnout of some of the most passionate young people in my electorate, ranging from year 12 students to university students, from fresh graduates to young adults in the workforce. We had hospo workers, tradies, a few parents and some old faces from my 2022 campaign. The event was an opportunity for gen Z and millennials to raise their voices on what's most important to them but most of all for me not only to listen to their uncertainty, their fears and their anger but also to hear their hope. This is Gen Zoe—the passion of our young generations to speak up and chase the future that they deserve and that we, as leaders in this place, must help provide. They make us listen. They do politics differently. Members of this movement who came along were asked what they want to see done differently and what their key concerns are, and Canberra better be ready to hear it: cost of living; intergenerational equity; interest rates; tax reform; housing shortages; renter rights; minimum wages for hospo; and 'Zoe is brat'—I'll take it! You've probably picked up the obvious theme here, and it's not Charli XCX's new album; it's the reality that for Australia's young generation the future is uncertain and they believe the government isn't doing enough to fix it. Gen Z and millennials are struggling with the soaring list of financial pressures. The cost of living is climbing and many young people are struggling to cover their basic living expenses. For most, the idea of getting a mortgage isn't even on the radar. Whether it's the price of a myki fare, the prohibitive cost of entertainment or outrageous supermarket grocery bills, every expense adds to the burden. Soaring cost-of-living pressures have deeper social consequences: queues to inspect just one rental property on a weekend; living at home with your parents for longer; fewer people out on a Saturday night; and huge challenges to access mental health support if needed. To cope, millennials and gen Z are forgoing the experiences which eventually turn into core memories that are vital to growing up. I'm determined to bring the voices of the Goldstein Gen Zoe group to Canberra. The system as it stands is failing them. I'm listening and I'm fighting for the future they deserve. Aston Electorate: Community Events 84 16:03 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston The winter break has provided me with so many great opportunities to get out and about in my electorate and to meet and connect with so many different constituents. In late July I had the great pleasure of meeting with the very first member for Aston, John Saunderson, and his wife, Colleen, and daughter, Liz. It was great being able to hear from John about the very many different experiences he had doing this fantastic job, which he did from 1984 to 1990. John told me what it was like being part of the Hawke Labor government—and I was a very captive audience, I must say! I thank John and his family very much for their time, and John for the sound advice he shared with me. Additionally, during the break I had the great privilege to attend some fantastic celebrations at Kings Park in Upper Ferntree Gully in celebration of Swiss National Day along with the wonderful state member for Monbulk, Daniela De Martino. The day was organised by the Swiss Yodel Choir Matterhorn, with many terrific cultural celebrations to experience and join in with; I didn't do the yodelling so much, though! It was such a terrific turnout, with over 500 people all celebrating and supporting the event—and yummy food too, I must say. It was an honour to meet with the honorary consul of Switzerland in Melbourne, Manuela Erb, and members of the committee. I am certainly looking forward to Swiss National Day next year. I've also had many opportunities to hold mobile offices across the electorate, giving me an opportunity to chat with many constituents. These provide a fantastic opportunity to get out into the community, and to have great chats with people about life and any problems they may have as well. I visited Wellington Village in Rowville and my friends at Choco Bean coffee shop, which always gives me a great chance to chat with the locals. I also joined many early risers at Boronia and Bayswater train stations, and I was thrilled to bump into some very familiar faces as well. I ran into Steve, who I've met several times over the last couple of years now, as well as Brian, who's originally from Ohio. I first met him and his wife, Perla, last year. They'd become Australian citizens just before the by-election, and they voted for me, so I was very happy to meet them both again. The support I receive from so many lovely locals who stop to say hello and pass on their feedback is much appreciated, and I give a big thanks to those who let me know they voted for me two times. Thanks for that! I encourage all those in my electorate of Aston to pop down to Wellington Village or any of the mobile offices to have a chat about anything or for any federal government related assistance. Hadley, Mr Franklin Carrick (Frank), AM 85 16:05 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes A short while ago, early in the winter, Wee Waa lost one of its most loved and respected citizens. Frank Hadley, a cotton pioneer, passed away at Wee Waa at the age of 97. Frank was a pioneer in the true sense of the word. Frank and Paul Kahl, his good friend and neighbour in California, migrated to Australia in the early sixties. Straightaway, they saw the potential to grow cotton in the Namoi Valley. It wasn't really considered an option by others at the time, but, with the completion of Keepit Dam and the regulation of the Namoi River, they saw that opportunity. They pooled their resources on, basically, a handshake agreement that they would work together until they were established and would then split their farms and go their separate ways. That they did. After a couple of years, Frank and Paul went their own separate ways, but they remained lifelong friends and farmed side by side until Paul's passing a few years back. The early challenges that they had growing cotton on what was essentially a sheep farm were enormous. I remember Frank telling me that they battled castor oil plants, variegated thistles and the like. I think they had to take the first crop that they grew to Brisbane to be ginned. It wasn't long after they started growing the crop that Frank was instrumental in forming the Namoi Cotton cooperative so they could gin their cotton locally. He was an early director of Cotton Seed Distributors so they could take control of the cottonseed and also develop varieties that were suited to the Australian climate. I had the privilege of having a few chats to Frank over the years. He was a true gentleman: a softly spoken man, a wonderful contributor to the community of Wee Waa, a volunteer in various organisations and an inspiration to everyone. He never quite lost his Californian twang, but, in that polite sort of Californian way, he gave the impression to everyone he spoke to that he was really pleased to see them. Just recently, before Frank's death, Paul Kahl's grandson Sam took him for a drive on a modern cotton picker, and he was incredibly proud of the progress that this industry has made. From the early starts by Paul Kahl and Frank Hadley to being one of the most, if not the most, efficient cotton industries in the world, they now produce more cotton per megalitre of water and litre of diesel than anywhere else in the world. That is all because of the pioneering work of a wonderful man by the name of Frank Hadley. Rest in peace. Lyons Electorate: Volunteers 85 16:08 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Volunteers are the beating heart of our communities. Whether it's community outreach, environmental causes or education, there is a place where a volunteer's unique skills and interests can flourish for the betterment of the community. It's a rewarding experience, and I'd like to use these few minutes to mention some of the wonderful volunteers in my electorate. First and foremost, I'd like to pay my respects to Barbara Morley, who I was very saddened to hear had died last week. Barbara's dedication over many decades to the Magra Country Women's Association and to the community will be greatly missed. My staff and I will particularly miss receiving her handwritten invitations on the lovely floral stationery that she always used, and the Magra CWA AGM will still, of course, have incredible spreads to enjoy, but with one less treat at the table. Jo Saunderson of the Perth Community Progress Association hosts a monthly 'scone time' at her house as an opportunity for the community to get together and socialise, having her wonderful homemade scones. Jo also arranged last month's inaugural Christmas in July event in Tasmania, which I had the pleasure of visiting and donating to. There was facepainting for kids, live music, a lovely bonfire, a Santa and elf run and lots of trivia. It was a great day out for the family despite the wild and woolly weather. I'd like to thank Jo for her amazing achievement in organising this event. Sonya Williams has been running Under One Rainbow for more than ten years. Under One Rainbow was originally established following a homophobic, violent act on a young boy in the Bridgewater area. It promotes inclusion and diversity for the LGBTQIA and broader community. Sonya does amazing work, and she's often at community events with her team. Kristian Horvath and the team at Sorrell Community Network are a relatively new volunteer group that provide free food, free pet food and hot meals to the Sorrell community and its environs. They're doing wonderful work down there the south-east. Ann Marie Blunt is a powerhouse of a volunteer in the St Helens area of my electorate, which is in the north-east of the state. Ann Marie is the founder and played an integral part in the establishment of the St Helens Netball Association. Ann Marie is a foster carer for children within her own home, a key member in establishing Little Athletics in the St Helens area and a driver for Meals on Wheels, and she mentors our young people at the St Helens District High School. Just lastly, I'd like to mention Neville Goss of Cressy, who recently retired after an impressive 50 years of employment with Browns supermarkets. We all wish Neville well with his retirement. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games, Fadden Electorate: Community 86 16:12 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden Like many Australians, I've been closely following an outstanding performance by athletes at the Paris Olympic Games. Among them were four of my constituents, Olivia Gadecki, Kaylee McKeown, Cory Weyer and Emma McKeon. Their performances have been truly remarkable, and they should be extremely proud. I give a special shout-out to Emma McKeon, who not only won three medals this Olympics but became Australia's most decorated Olympian, with 14 career Olympic medals. That really is something for our community to very proud of. Later this month, Maddie McTernan will also represent Australia in swimming at the Paralympics. I was lucky enough to meet with Maddie at the Arundel Park Riding for Disabled recently, where she was making a contribution, giving back to other people with disabilities. I wish her the best of luck for her events at the Paralympic Games. I recently had the pleasure of joining Men's Shed Labrador for their annual general meeting. This group has played a crucial role in promoting the health and mental wellbeing of their members while greatly contributing to the community. This is mateship while making stuff. I give a special mention to Len Thomson for his 14 years as secretary and Merv Holliday for his seven years of service as president. Best wishes to Gordon Cowser and the new executive. I am confident you will continue the men's shed mission with great success in the years to come. I recently attended the Queensland Country Women's Association Coomera Branch's annual general meeting. This group exemplifies our Australian values and has significantly contributed to our community over many decades in the local area. It was inspiring to hear the way these ladies' skills and collective effort have served our community over the past 12 months, and I look forward to seeing what they can achieve in the year ahead. Last month I had the pleasure of joining the Pimpama Probus club to celebrate their fourth birthday at their Christmas in July event. Their rapid growth, with the club now boasting over 100 members, reflects not only the vibrant community spirit in Pimpama but also rapid growth in the north of our city. I give a special thank you to club president Anne and the committee for inviting me to share this special occasion. Another recent highlight was my trip to Labrador State School, where I attended the Academic Parade. I was able to recognise high achievers by presenting students with awards—and, boy, were there are some great achievements recognised that day! It was fantastic to spend time with Principal Stephen Josey and hear about the exciting new developments taking place on their campus, including the completion of their very own central park, which I know will play an important role in the school campus for years to come. Well done, Labrador State School team. These are outstanding efforts by the students and it is a wonderful school that they should all be very proud of. Energy Efficiency 86 16:15 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan If you ever find yourself in Perth, there's a good chance that you'll end up in the electorate of Swan. Yes, the airport is in the electorate, but it's also a hub of activity. Just across the river from the Perth CBD is Swan. We stretch between the Swan and the Canning rivers. There are a bunch of diverse suburbs, from South Perth and Victoria Park to Belmont and High Wycombe, and there are many more, plus it's home to Curtin University and the industrial hubs of Welshpool. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, Swan is about to get a whole bunch more activity through energy efficiency grants. Energy efficiency is all about using less energy to get the same job done, saving money on bills and cutting down on pollution. Right now there are many products, homes and buildings that waste a lot more energy than they need to, but Labor is stepping up to change that. I often think that, if people could actually see energy waste in real time, they would actively do actions to try to reduce that. We're not just cutting down greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants; we're also helping people lower their energy bills. This is through Labor's Energy Efficiency Grants for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises program, and I'm pleased to announce that 15 organisations in Swan have received grants to boost their energy efficiency. In Swan, 15 organisations will receive a total of $370,000 in grants. These organisations will aim to make businesses more energy efficient. I recently had the pleasure of visiting one of these businesses with the member for Fremantle, the newly appointed Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy. This was his very first visit as an assistant minister. We visited Forest Fresh Australia honey in Bentley. This is an innovative company which is looking at the role of honey in natural medicines and at their role in the Australian market. But they also have amazing products which they are exporting overseas. Forest Fresh is receiving a grant of $25,000 to convert their warming room to solar generated heating for heat treating their honey. It's a fantastic initiative. Forest Fresh is an amazing family-run business right in Swan that is producing active forest-fresh honey from the pristine forests of Western Australia. It's a family of four generations of beekeepers, which includes new mum, Samantha. I also learnt that 90 per cent of their honey is exported to Asia and the Middle East. Other local businesses have benefited from this grant: Barking Butler, a dog-grooming service in Como; Westindo in Rivervale; Phoenix steel sales in Welshpool; and Force Technology in Belmont. Streetwork 87 16:18 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm pleased to rise to speak about two very important community organisations in my electorate. The first is Streetwork, which recently held a supporters' breakfast at Willoughby Uniting Church on 29 June. It was a very well attended event, reflecting the commitment within our community on the North Shore to supporting our young people. Indeed, I look forward to representing the community of Willoughby, as it's amongst the communities that will come into Bradfield once the final redistribution results are announced. Streetwork is a not-for-profit organisation helping troubled teens across the North Shore. Their important work includes a kickstart mentoring program that seeks to transform the lives and behaviours of vulnerable young people through positive role models and influences. An important aspect of this program is putting the young person in close collaboration with a youth caseworker. The theme for the breakfast event was the way in which Streetwork engages with young people to assist them to build positive relationships, particularly as they may, in moments of crisis, engage with the police or with juvenile justice. Of course, this building of trust can be complex and is not necessarily easily achieved, but Streetwork does have quite an impressive track record of helping build those ties. There's a constructive discussion of the way in which early intervention can assist in preventing antisocial behaviour. I want to acknowledge the chief executive officer of StreetWork, Helen Banu, OAM and her team for their important work, and the many supporters of StreetWork. The second community cause I want to speak about is the Special Olympics Kuringgai Chase Fun Run and the Barry Easy Walk, which took place on 16 June in Wahroonga. Special Olympics plays an important role in our northern suburbs by offering people with intellectual disabilities the chance to participate in sporting activities. It has grown significantly since it first began in Australia in 1976. I was delighted to join hundreds of locals to participate in this fun run and walk, which winds through the leafy but troublingly hilly streets of Wahroonga. I chose to participate in the 10-kilometre run, and I want to acknowledge local medical specialist Dr Rod Brooks. He passed me and I passed him a couple of times, and, with a bit of a push, we both produced some of our best times, finishing in just under 53 minutes. I acknowledge the vision and tireless work of the late Barry Easy OAM, who founded the Kurringgai Chase fun run and walk. This has become an important community organisation on the upper North Shore, and I pay tribute to the many volunteers who make this successful event possible, as well as the Sydney Upper North Shore division of Special Olympics Australia. I thank them all for their contribution, and I congratulate everybody who ran, walked or otherwise participated in this important community event. Albanese Government: Education 87 16:21 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand The Albanese government understands the transformative power of education. We want to make sure that all students, whether they are at primary school, high school, TAFE or university, have every chance of success. In my electorate of Brand, the Albanese Labor government is making significant investments to support our local schools and school communities. I grew up and went to school in Safety Bay and Rockingham Beach, so I know how important it is that local students get the best opportunities for a great education. Thanks to Labor, schools in Brand are now better equipped with the technology and infrastructure they need to deliver a quality education for students. Through the Commonwealth's Capital Grants Program, a total of $7.8 million worth of projects have been completed for new facilities in local schools in Brand. Schools such as the beautiful Mother Teresa Catholic College in Baldivis, the King's College in Wellard and Rockingham Montessori School have benefited from this program. The new facilities include libraries, science labs, outdoor sports areas, food studios, an arts centre and specialist support rooms, and they will help generations of school students to come. Recognising the role of parents and communities in the education of young people, the Albanese government has so far provided more than $12,000 to P&Cs in Brand through our Volunteer Grants program. After the school years, we want to make sure that students succeed well into the future. Access to quality vocational and higher education is essential to making sure that students are properly equipped with the skills for the jobs that they want and that the country needs them to do. Thanks to the Albanese government, students will be able to access courses for high-demand jobs for free as we deliver 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from this year. These fee-free TAFE places will change lives, especially in the electorate of Brand, and they will address skills shortages across a range of industries. That's especially the case in the suburbs of Rockingham and Kwinana, where the local community has the exciting opportunity to work in close support of the advanced technology of the AUKUS program, being conducted at HMAS Stirling. We are also, as a government, introducing payments for those doing mandatory practical placements next year. That means those studying teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work will be able to apply for payments of $320 a week while undertaking those mandatory placements. These payments will help students in Brand complete their courses and, ultimately, help employers get the skilled staff they need, which will be of benefit to the whole community. On top of this, more than 16,000 people in Brand will receive student debt relief, thanks to this Albanese government. I'm really proud of the work this government is doing to support young people and their education. These initiatives will help local students in our community to realise their full potential and to succeed. Banks Electorate: Community Events 88 16:24 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 3 August I attended the centenary dinner of the St George Football Association, and what an incredible organisation it is. It has existed in various forms for 100 years. It was great to see the president of Football St George, its chair, Irene Hatzipetros, the chief executive, Phil Brown, and all of the many clubs represented on the night, such as Lugarno, Forest Rangers, Oatley FC, All Saints Oatley West Penshurst West and so many others. It was a terrific night. Football is the absolute lifeblood of our community. There are some 14,000 members of the St George Football Association. It was wonderful to celebrate its centenary, and congratulations to all involved in a fantastic night. Last Friday, 9 August, I attended the 60th anniversary celebration of Georges River College Peakhurst, formerly known as Peakhurst High School. The students put on a wonderful display celebrating the 60 years of this fantastic organisation. We learnt so much about the school and some of its luminaries who had attended in the past. We learnt that Robyn Denholm, the chairperson of Tesla, attended Georges River College Peakhurst, along with many other people who have gone on to great success in our community. To the principal, Diane Wilson, and to all the students who were involved in putting on such a professional and uplifting event: thank you and congratulations. Arkana College is a terrific school in our area. On 25 July it was great to join the principal, Osman Karolia, and students for a demonstration of what they are doing in robotics. The years 5 and 6 kids have entered the Universal Robotics Challenge, and they will be representing Australia this year in the world robotics final in Japan. They gave a demonstration of the robot, which was incredibly impressive. The kids who were there on the day are a great credit to their school and to their families. They spoke in a very articulate way about the tremendous work they're doing in the robotics challenge. Congratulations to all the teachers and to Principal Karolia as well. On 27 July, the Pinnacle had its great opening. Formerly known as South Hurstville RSL, it has been through an extensive renovation in recent years. It was terrific to see the CEO, Simon Mikkelsen, and the president, Patrick Wedes, who have worked so hard for our local community. There was a huge crowd there on the day. It has been a tremendously successful renovation, and no doubt the Pinnacle is going to become even more of a meeting place in our community than it was in the past. Thank you to Simon and to Patrick and to everyone at the Pinnacle on this very successful project. Early Childhood Education 88 16:27 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Early childhood education is vital. It's good for the economy, it's good for families and it's amazing for our youngest Australians. If we want to invest in our human capital and be a wealthier, smarter country 20, 30 years from now, it is one of the smartest investments that we can make. That is why the government's commitment to a 15 per cent wage rise for early childhood educators, contingent on centres not increasing their fees by more than four per cent over 12 months, is so welcome. It's good, sensible Labor policy. It's good for workers and it's good for families. Now, you'd expect the opposition, the alternative government in the country, to support it, but once again they're full of negativity and blatant lies. On 9 August, Liberal senator Gerard Rennick, in his own words, on X, formerly known as Twitter, said: Institutionalised Childcare is a sacred cow for the Labor Party. It helps to fulfil a number of their goals. 1) Destroy the family unit. 2) Brainwash children early with the woke mind virus … To suggest that by lifting wages for hardworking early childhood educators the government is seeking to 'destroy the family unit' is frankly just alt-right lunacy, but it's also profoundly insulting to every Australian mum and dad and carer, and sometimes grandparents, who have cared for kids, who parent kids, who have chosen to access child care for their children to balance work and family responsibilities. There are even people who are not in the workforce at the time who want to access early childhood education and invest in their kids. Peter Dutton recently said that this Liberal senator, this same guy, Senator Rennick, has 'demonstrated he's not afraid to take up the fight in order to defend the values of the LNP' and 'I ask you to support Gerard as part of my team.' It's not the first time we've seen this attitude. Remember they were infighting in their own party room over childcare subsidies when they were in government. One of the LNP good old blokes club even went so far as suggesting publicly that working women were 'outsourcing parenting'. That led to weeks of infighting in the coalition party room, and it's never been clear just how many of them support that view and support Senator Rennick. It is crystal clear, though, that the Liberals do not support wage increases for workers. And it's no surprise. When they were in government, it was their official economic policy. I quote their then finance minister. He said that low wages were 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. I'll give them that. That's one thing they did achieve in their wasted decade of decay and dysfunction: real wages went backwards. For people in my electorate, God knows how many childcare workers—I meet them when I doorknock and I see them at the childcare centres—and all the parents who rely on quality early childhood education, this is incredibly welcome. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 89 BILLS Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 89

Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024

Second Reading 89 16:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I particularly thank the member for Hinkler for coming along to hear this speech. I know that he as the deputy chair of the public works committee just can't get enough of me as the chair! Seriously, I rise in support of the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill, as brought to the House by the honourable Minister for Communications. This bill is an important part of Labor's multifaceted approach to combating SMS scams and protecting Australian consumers. As the member for Aston knows, this legislation is welcomed by all constituents around Australia, including by Moreton constituents who have contacted my office to share their terrible experiences with SMS scams. I'm sure the member for Aston has people in her electorate who are concerned about this and distressed by it. They need their phones for all sorts of health reasons and the like, but then they're getting scams. SMS scams are a scourge, and they're not going away. In 2023, Australians reported 37 per cent more scams via text message compared to the previous year. Unfortunately, it can be pretty easy to fall for a text scam. Your phone pings, you glance at it and you recognise the name of your bank, a toll-charging service that you use, a government agency, or a courier used to deliver online purchases. You're not to know that these are fake text messages that are sent using sender identification in the message headers. If you click on the link in the text, you'll then be deceived into responding to the message or taking the actions the message suggests. If worst comes to worst, you may end up losing your personal information or your money. So I stress: don't click on the hyperlink. It might seem like a simple scam, but the criminals and the technology behind it are actually very sophisticated. Sometimes scam messages can appear in the same message chain as real messages from the organisation that you're dealing with. This makes them even harder to spot. Scammers also prey on our fears. The scam messages often contain threats to cease a service or to charge a fine if you don't act immediately—or worse. They may falsely claim that you or your accounts have been hacked, that you have a substantial bill that needs urgent payment or that there is a problem with your package delivery. It's not just a Nigerian prince offering you marriage or a great deal. We're all told, 'Never click on a link in an SMS if you don't know the sender.' We all need to remember this, but, in our busy lives, when you recognise the sender and you know you have a parcel due for delivery, it's all too easy to click on the link. It doesn't occur to you that it's not really StarTrack couriers or Australia Post who have messaged you. This bill takes action against the insidious practice of SMS scamming. The measures it contains take the scammers on by making it harder for them to operate. The crux of the bill is the establishment and maintenance of a register of legitimate sender IDs by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA. This builds on the rules registered by ACMA in 2022, which have blocked more than—wait for it—533 million scam texts between July 2022 and March 2024. It also builds on the information gathered by the pilot register, which was launched in December last year. The pilot program included organisations such as the Commonwealth Bank, the National Australia Bank, Services Australia and the ATO. The bill allows for the register to be either voluntary or mandatory, enabling the decision on its status to be implemented by the end of the year. It also dictates that the register can be maintained either partially or wholly by a contracted third party. The bill will also put in place an industry standard for telecommunications providers who manage SMS traffic. These providers will be required to check texts with sender IDs to ensure they are on the register. Those which are not may be blocked, or the text message may be tagged with a warning or labelled as fraudulent. There is some set-up work to do. ACMA will have the power to make determinations by legislative instrument. These will outline the requirements for access to the register as well as set out some admin and operation guidelines. All these will be in place before the register commences. The successful rollout of the register is also dependent on the deployment of a sophisticated IT system which has strong privacy and security features. It will also need to interact securely with the systems and processes used by the telecommunications industry. The legislation will commence once the decision over voluntary or mandatory permission is made by the government. And the bill accepts that ACMA needs time to establish the register to take IT requirements into account. The current timeline for the rollout is late next year and will most probably be after a transition and testing period. The register will benefit Australian consumers by decreasing the number and frequency of SMS scams. It will also protect legitimate brands and restore confidence and trust in SMS communications. Importantly, it will disrupt the business model of scammers and make Australia—one of the biggest economies on earth, the 13th biggest economy—a less attractive target for their dodgy operations. We know would-be scammers will attempt to find other ways to target Australians once the register is operational; that's the nature of being a wealthy country. The bill therefore allows for the Minister for Communications to respond to evolving scam attempts in the future. The minister will be able to make determinations regarding future new communication services which might use sender IDs. The bill also enables the minister to use an identifier other than letters, numbers or symbols in the future and allows for the extension of the register to retain additional relevant information. Since coming to government Labor has taken incisive and comprehensive action against scamming. We established the National Anti-Scam Centre as part of the ACCC. The NASC provides several services, including the Scamwatch service, to share up-to-the-minute information on scams and the best way for Australians to protect themselves. It also collects and shares information across government and business sectors and coordinates action to combat scammers. I recommend checking out the Scamwatch website and sharing it amongst your constituents or friends or neighbours or elderly parents. It provides valuable tips on how to spot a scam text and the steps to take if you click on a link in a message. It's something my community has particularly appreciated, and when I brought the minister, Stephen Jones, up to talk about scams it gave people information and the confidence to then talk to their friends about it. The Albanese government has done more than that. We've directed $67½ million over four years to bolstering the Fighting Scams initiative to protect Australians from financial harm. The funding enables the establishment of a scams code framework. This focuses on mandatory industry codes for banks, digital communications platforms and telecommunications providers in regard to preventing, detecting and stopping scams. The code requires all telecommunications providers to identify, trace and block SMS scams. It will also support ACMA to enforce compliance with providers. This funding is in addition to the nearly $87 million over four years announced in last year's budget. We are committed to taking on the scammers, and, slowly but surely, we are winning. This bill is backed by two rounds of extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders. ACMA commenced targeted consultation in February last year with the telecommunication providers, government agencies, merchants and consumer organisations to establish the level of support for a proposed register. The second phase of consultation was held in February and March this year and focused on how the Australian register should operate—that is, whether it should be mandatory or voluntary. We anticipate that ACMA will hold further consultations to decide the final operational details before implementation—whatever will be most efficient. The establishment of the register and the other measures reflects the Albanese Labor government's actions to protect Australian consumers. As the Minister for Communications said: Cracking down on criminals trying to rip off hardworking Australians is a priority for this Government. They are great words. I commend her work, and I commend this bill to the House. 16:39 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Carrying on where the member for Moreton left off, it's incredibly important that we understand that those who are most likely to have to deal with scammers are the vulnerable: those who are elderly and those who are, basically, uninitiated. We need to try to convince people to not open that link. Do not let that cookie onto your phone. No, that person has not sent you out a fine for not paying a toll; this is a scam. Vulnerable people, who are generally decent people, believe that everything they get is bona fide, and so they have a propensity to get caught up in these scams. We find it's just like a thief. If a thief breaks into a house they usually come back, because they know they can do it. That is the problem. Scammers realise that there's a vulnerability in a person, and that opens the person up to further scams. The analytics that sit behind the software show that this person is actually going further, spending more time looking at it and looking at the message for longer. Therefore, they have a propensity to be vulnerable. In regional areas, sometimes we get things that are quite hilarious. This one is a bit interesting. I'm in Danglemah. Danglemah is in the middle of nowhere. There is no-one around me except the boys that I grew up with. It's off the grid. I get a message that there is some wonderful, delightful human female who wants to meet me, and she's only a kilometre away. So, I stand on the hill and wonder which tree she's living in! If that was in a city context, someone might be vulnerable enough to think, 'I'm lonely, and this is a chance for me to meet another person.' Obviously, it's a scam. The other one that happens out in the regions is: I haven't paid my tolls. To whom have I not paid my tolls? If I was living in Sydney, that would be something I'd very likely consider to be an issue. What is incredibly important is that it shows our reliance on telecommunications and how good people rely on telecommunications. The one thing worse than a scam is not having any telecommunication service whatsoever. In our area the capacity of scammers to contact people has been increased because of the increase in mobile phone towers. I want to run through the mobile phone towers that are in our area to give a sense of how, in New England, this has increased the propensity for people to be contacted by scammers 24/7. There are new mobile phone towers at Balala, Bonshaw, Drake, Dungowan, Hillgrove, Kings Plains, Rocky Creek, Urbenville, Walcha Road—that's near me—Woolomin, Attunga, Barraba, Bruxner Highway at Sandy Hills, Bruxner Highway at Tabulam, Duri, Elsmore, Fossickers Way between Barraba and Manilla, Hallsville, Invergowrie, Manilla, Moonbi, Mount Carrington, Oxley Vale, Piallamore, Sping Mountain Road at White Rock Mountain west of Glen Innes, the Warral side of Tamworth, Walcha, Westdale, Baldersleigh, Koreelah, Pinkett, Mount Hourigan, Doughboy Mountain—where we've just stopped the swindle factories; I'm really happy about that—Fig Tree Hill near Copeton Dam, Copeton Dam itself, Kingstown, Moonan Flat down near Ellerston, Legume, Torrington, Wellingrove Creek, Weabonga—it's not what people do; it's a village just over the hill from me—Spring Ridge, Blackville, Gilgai, Bukkulla, Glen Elgin, Mole River Exchange, Tenterfield, Watsons Creek and Woods Reef Exchange. We have always tried to make sure people have access to mobile phone technology. In so doing, scammers have access to people 24/7. I fully support this bill, the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024. I think it's really important. It shows that we have the ability to go to people who provide telecommunications and put some further licensing agreements and conditions on them. I think in the future we'll have to look at social media and what they are doing, because sometimes they seem to run riot without any controls whatsoever. As one person sells a scam to rip off a vulnerable person, another person finds a 16-year-old girl, tells her she's fat, gets her into that evil net of self-identification and self-deprecation and draws them down into a very dark place. This is something that I've been very passionate about in this place for a long while. I don't know why we're so scared to take these people on, but we obviously are. This bill, as it comes forward, is going to, hopefully—it will never catch up with the scammers, because scammers, by their very nature, are criminals. Most criminals are pretty stupid, but the good ones are quite ingenious, and the ingenious ones will find a new and better way to slip inside the net, to find the person who's vulnerable and probably not as educated and to work out how to get a hold of their money. In the story of scammers we find people whose lives have been completely destroyed. It's not a case of losing hundreds; it's not a case of someone losing thousands; for some of them it's not losing tens of thousands but losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Once a person has access to certain details, especially banking details, it's an incredibly dangerous thing. This is what we get in certain areas. One of the other classic scams, of course, is people with all the livery and the impersonation of a bank asking for details in regard to changing an account or updating information. People update their information and, when they come back, all the money—everything—has gone from their account. We also managed to follow through some of these scammers to see that there's another insidious side to this. In prompting telephone calls, where you get a call from someone and they're obviously overseas—for me, I thought there was some sort of perverted fun in asking them, if they're from Australia, what they thought about how Manly played on the weekend or, if they were in Melbourne, how St Kilda went on the weekend. Another way I always find to annoy them is to just keep talking to them, forever, ask them stupid questions, put on a stupid accent and see if they want to go out for lunch until they realise that you're not vulnerable—you're crazy and annoying—and hang up on you. However, what I didn't know is that a lot of these people are basically in slave labour. In places such as Cambodia they are indentured for nothing. They have no freedoms and their lives are an absolute misery. We're talking about a person who is basically locked in a room with other people who are beaten up and who have no freedoms whatsoever. This is the other side of scams, which a lot of people don't understand. This is another reason why we should not only have legislation against the scammers but go to the source countries and say, 'Well, what are you doing to do this?' Some people, very ingeniously and very, very decently, have said to the person: 'Can other people hear what you are saying right now? Are you okay? Can you tell me if you are alright? Are you free?' On the odd occasion, people have said 'No, I'm not.' Then they've said, 'Where exactly are you?' A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:49 to 17:09 Mr JOYCE e5d What is also part of the telecommunications issue which is so important, as I just mentioned before, is that, in a lot of countries, the people who actually make these scam calls are basically slave labour. They are locked up. They are in quite insidious circumstances. So I temper my response somewhat to people when they call up, because I consider the exact circumstances that that person may find themselves in in the Philippines, in Cambodia or in other areas. So this is bad on all levels, and that is another very good reason why we have to try and stamp it out. It's because people can be contactable just about anywhere on the planet that scammers find this so attractive. You don't have to walk down the street. In the past, scammers went door to door, knocking on them, trying to find gullible people. But now they don't have to. They just have a computer, it calls a number, another person deals with the call, and off they go. We've been trying to make sure that world is covered. We're trying now also to fight for further mobile phone towers for Kruiapple—which is just out of Yetman—Bunnan, Rouchel and Gundy in the Upper Hunter, Blue Mountain to cover the Enmore and the Winterbourne areas, Legume, Sandy Flat south of Tenterfield, Rangers Valley, Guyra, Niangala, Woolbrook—that one is very important, because that's near me, and I went to Woolbrook Public School—and Port Stephens Cutting, which is incredibly dangerous, and we've got to fix it up. I call on the government to get that $20 million out, because someone is going to get killed on that. There's Werris Creek. I used to live in Wellington Vale. By reason of mobile telecommunications, people are never away. If they've got a phone in their pocket, and if they've got SMS, they're a potential target for scammers. As such, we have to make sure that, with this legislation and others, we will never wipe them out. But we have to partially catch up, and that's what this legislation does. 17:11 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My community in Chisholm, like so many communities around the country, are absolutely sick of scammers taking advantage of them. Scams are an absolute scourge. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17 : 12 to 17:21 Dr GARLAND 295588 As I was saying, in my electorate of Chisholm, people are really worried about scams. It's an absolutely scourge in our community. Over the last couple of years since I was elected, we've held many different forums to advise people in my electorate of what they can do to protect themselves from scams. We've held forums in local libraries, in community centres, in bowling clubs, in retirement villages and online, and we've had hundreds and hundreds of people attend. The spots for these forums are snapped up really quickly because people are so concerned about scams in the community. We have distributed thousands and thousands of copies of The little black book of scams to neighbourhood houses, to various community groups and to many residents throughout our electorate. A reminder to any Chisholm local who would like The little black book of scams—please contact my office. We're very happy to send you a copy. I'm sick of scams too. Like so many people, I get texts and phone calls almost every day. I'm really pleased to speak on this piece of legislation today and really proud to be part of a government that is taking meaningful action against scams. The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill marks a really important step in our government's multipronged approach to combating SMS scams. The establishment and maintenance of a register by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the ACMA, under this bill complements rules registered by the ACMA in 2022 which blocked more than 533 million scam texts between July of that year and March 2024. This register will also complement our broader, comprehensive approach to scams. This includes the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre, the NASC, as an innovative, world-leading, public and private sector partnership to disrupt and stop scammers in Australia; and the introduction of a scams code framework requiring telcos, banks and digital platforms to prevent, detect and disrupt scams. Now, just a little bit of advice to people who may be watching and interested in what they can do to protect themselves from scams— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:24 to 17:33 Dr GARLAND 295588 As I was saying before the suspension, there are some really practical things that people can do to try and protect themselves from scams— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:34 to 17:44 Dr GARLAND 295588 There are a number of things people can do to protect themselves from scams. The first is to stop and slow down the communications with someone who might have contacted you. Don't give any information to people who contact you via SMS or via phone or via email. Think: Could it be fake? Is this a genuine communication? Verify it with the official contact number or website, and don't click links on SMSs that you may receive. Protect yourself. Think and act quickly. If you need to, contact your bank, and make sure you put a report in with Scamwatch. That's certainly what I do every time I'm contacted by a scammer. The scams that are targeted by this particular bill are fake text messages—which I know we all receive—that are sent by SMS using a sender identification in the message headers that looks like those of well-known companies or brands, including banks, government agencies such as myGov or Australia Post, and consumer product companies such as Coles or Linkt. Often scammers are relying on us being busy and trusting these organisations so that we're not thinking about the communications we're receiving. But, as I said, stop, think and protect. That can really help you when you are being targeted by scammers. But there's obviously a very big role for government here, which is why we're introducing this legislation. Unfortunately, people who receive these SMS impersonation scams are often deceived into responding or taking action suggested by these text messages. These are absolutely not victimless crimes, and the theft of personal information or money from innocent victims is an incredibly sad outcome of this scam SMS traffic. This bill will require the ACMA to establish and maintain a register of legitimate sender IDs. The ACMA can also engage a contracted provider to partially or wholly maintain the register. This bill will also allow for either a voluntary or mandatory register. Following public consultation on this issue earlier this year, an announcement on whether the use of the register will be voluntary or mandatory for entities wishing to send messages using sender IDs will be made by the end of this year. This bill confers powers on the ACMA to make determinations by legislative instrument. These instruments will set out further requirements for access to the register and for its administration and operation, which will need to be in place before the register commences operation. An industry standard for telecommunications providers who manage SMS traffic will also be made by the ACMA. The standard will require telcos who manage SMS traffic to check SMSs that use sender IDs to ascertain whether a sender ID is on the register and whether the sender is a registered party. If not, the telco could be required to block or tag the SMS as fraudulent. Once the framework for the register is fully established, businesses and entities can be invited to apply to have their sender IDs placed on the register. Once operational, the register will decrease the frequency and impact of SMS impersonation scams on consumers. The operation of the register will also increase protections for legitimate brands and agencies against bad actors impersonating them. This will disrupt the business model of SMS impersonation scams. This register will boost public confidence in SMS as a communications channel, and the operation of the register will ultimately make Australia a harder target for scam activity. Similar registers are already in operation in a number of other jurisdictions, including Singapore. The Singapore sender ID registry requires mandatory registration for organisations wishing to use SMS sender IDs. Research released in November last year found that 87 per cent of Singaporean consumers said the register has made it easier to identify the legitimacy of SMSs they receive. Sixty-three per cent also noted that the register has resulted in them receiving fewer spam or scam messages. This is good for restoring confidence in the communications channel and reducing the number of spam and scam messages. This is what we want to see in Australia. A deferred commencement date for this act will accommodate the fact that there are details relating to the application process and some operational features that are dependent on the government decision scheduled for later this year as to whether registration will be voluntary or mandatory. The register will need to deploy a complex ICT mechanism that is capable of interacting with systems and processes used by the telco industry, and it will of course need to have robust privacy and security settings. Commencement of the act is by proclamation. If no proclamation occurs, the provisions will commence automatically six months after the act receives royal assent. Once the legislation commences, the ACMA will be able to establish the register. To allow the ACMA the time needed to finalise these preparations, the bill provides that the ACMA must establish the register as soon as practicable. This will provide the ACMA with the necessary flexibility to prepare for the commencement of the register's operation, and it is anticipated that the register will be operational by late 2025. The commencement of the register's operation is likely to be preceded by a transition period during which entities will submit and register their sender identifications. It's really important, of course, that we try and do what we can to stay one step ahead of scammers, because often they use very sophisticated techniques to try and trick people. Something that often comes up during the scam forums that I hold is that people are embarrassed and ashamed that they have been targeted by scammers. I want to reassure people that anyone can fall victim to scammers. This is what they do every day. They are very sophisticated in what they do and they take advantage of people being busy. They often rely on making people feel there is a sense of urgency. They play on emotion. These are manipulative, sophisticated players. I want to reiterate the importance of people making sure that they report any issue they've had with a scammer to Scamwatch so that we're able to understand the nature and the scale of the problem, because every day there is a new scam. Our government is not naive in thinking that the register will provide a silver bullet against all future SMS impersonation scams. We know, as I mentioned before, that scammers will invariably change tactics and use new methods to contact and ensnare would-be victims. That's why the bill has in-built provisions to allow us to respond quickly. The bill provides for the Minister for Communications to make determinations in the future, by way of legislative instrument, to respond to a changing scam landscape. That's what we're dealing with—a scam landscape. This will allow the minister to determine future communications services other than SMS and MMS which may use sender identifications registered in the future; anything other than letters, symbols and numbers which may be included in sender identification in the future; and relevant information additional to accepted sender identifications that should be kept on the register in the future. The bill also provides the ACMA with the ability to make determinations by legislative instruments. The legislative instruments that the ACMA will make will set up further requirements for access to the register and its administration and operation, and this will need to be in place before the register commences operation. These instruments can be amended in response to scammers changing tactics—again, in order for us to do what we can as a government to stay one step ahead of these scammers. As the speeches so far in this chamber have indicated, there is an enormous public interest in this legislation and taking action against scammers. The development of this bill has been informed by two rounds of stakeholder and public consultation. The ACMA initially undertook consultation in February 2023 with key stakeholders, including telco providers, government agencies, merchants and consumer organisations, to examine support for the establishment of a register, and in February and March this year there was broad public consultation seeking feedback on the nature of the register to be adopted in Australia and whether it should be mandatory or voluntary. It is expected that the ACMA will undertake further targeted consultation on the draft legislative instruments required to settle the detail of the register's processes. We're doing a lot to combat scamming. It's really important for our communities, and this is really good public policy. Through our Fighting Scams Initiative measure, our government has committed $67.5 million over four years, from 2024-25 onwards, to combat scams and protect Australians from financial harms. This funding is supporting things like the introduction of mandatory industry codes to combat scams, the ACMA's work in enforcing compliance among telco industry operators through the antiscams code, and a campaign by the National Anti-Scam Centre on helping consumers protect themselves from scams. As I say, this is something that is enormously important to the people in my electorate of Chisholm and, I suspect, electorates right across the country. The funding provided in the May budget, that I just mentioned, is in addition to the $86.5 million over four years provided in last year's budget, which included the funding to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre within the ACCC from July last year. It's great to see that the National Anti-Scam Centre and the work they do is having some positive results. But there's of course more to do, hence the legislation before the House now. I'm really proud to be part of a government taking action. I will continue to work with my community to educate people about what they can do to protect themselves from scams. Not only that; I will communicate to my electorate the very important steps our government is taking so we can remain one step ahead of these nefarious operators and make sure our communities are safe from being targeted and losing access to their personal information and, in many cases, money. 17:55 Ms LE 295676 Fowler We've just heard from members in this Chamber about the extent to which Australians are increasingly facing and confronted with spam and scams. It's no surprise, as we're spending so much more of our time on our mobile phones and devices. Technology is wonderful in one way but a curse in another. Many in this Chamber are probably exasperated with the number of times our mobile phones ring and a strange number will appear, and we don't even know what that number is. We are always receiving text messages that look like they could legitimately be from organisations such as tolls or Australia Post—and, if you have untrained eyes, you could actually click the link. As the member for New England said previously, do not click on any links you receive on your mobile phones or in emails. Unfortunately, this is such a norm in our society these days, with the scammers becoming more and more sophisticated in their craft and with the technology available for everybody to use. I know for a fact that many of my constituents are concerned by the regular unwanted and unsolicited spam and scams. Some have unfortunately fallen for these scams, as the text messages seem legitimate in their eyes. My office in Fowler has received emails and calls from constituents who have been victims of these types of scams and cybercrime. One fell victim to a cryptocurrency scheme, with scammers convincing them to verify their transactions and identity through a 'bank' which clearly does not exist. This all occurred via text message, and he lost $59,000. As you can see, these are very real experiences of cybercrime or scams which could be prevented. My understanding is that this bill, the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, will set up a SMS sender ID registry—which I believe could help tackle cybercrime, namely prevention. Once criminals have access to our private information or steal our digital identity, it's very difficult to either recover our privacy or prosecute the offenders. Often these criminals come from outside Australia. My office recently met with the Joint Policing Cybercrime Coordination Centre, or JPC3, to seek information on what advice to give to Fowler residents. I'm in awe of their work, of what they do in investigating and analysing cybercrime on a national and international scale. It's incredible that their work has led to the prosecution of cybercriminals in other countries through interagency work. A vital part of the work is in passing on the lessons learned through their investigations to Australians, to inform and prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. Australians are urged to look at the website maintained for this purpose, cyber.gov.au. The information on this site could prevent a world of pain as well as help those who have been victims of these criminals. The member for Chisholm mentioned The Little Black Book of Scams. My office has also ordered this book that is available for our community. One of the things I asked is for this book to also be in languages. We're hoping that there'll be availability in languages because, as we know, communities such as Fowler, where 70 per cent of our population are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, are often very vulnerable to scams. This kind of material in languages would be very, very helpful. It is important to remember that these criminal individuals and networks are exploiting us. It's especially hard for elderly Australians or for Australians with intellectual disability to spot scam messages. And, as I mentioned, it's hard for new Australians whose first language is not English, like many in my electorate of Fowler. They're also very vulnerable to these messages. That is not only because of a language barrier but because government use of SMS technology might be new to them. Falling for these scams often makes people feel stupid or humiliated, and they're not. This bill places the emphasis where it should be—not on the victim but on making it more difficult for the criminal. I acknowledge that there was industry-wide consultation ahead of writing this bill. I also welcome the flexibility that the bill affords in responding to developing technologies, as we know that these can change rapidly. The cost of establishing and maintaining the register is about $10.9 million over four years, with ongoing costs of around $2.2 million per year thereafter. It sounds like a lot of money, but, in the context of the $3.1 billion that the ACCC reported being stolen through scams in 2022, I believe this investment will help protect our Australian public. The work of the JPC3 and other law enforcement programs saw a reduction in SMS scams by 13.1 per cent in 2023, according to the ACCC. I welcome this news, and, in supporting this bill, my hope is that it will help to reduce SMS scams that much further. As Australians we've taken up the convenience of accessing our banking, contacting government departments, doing our shopping and making daily transactions using our mobile phones. With AI technology now widely adopted, we must also be on alert when using such technology. It can certainly assist us, but it also hinders us, as there can be deadly weapons in scams. However, we can't surrender the benefits of existing and future technologies to those who would abuse them to steal from us. For us here in the chamber and for those who are well educated and well informed, have access to technology and information and have English as their first language, I think being a victim of scams is probably less likely than it is for those that are from vulnerable communities. So, while I really support this bill, I call on the government to ensure that, for the vulnerable people in our communities—in communities like Fowler where English is a second language—much more is done to ensure that they are protected from the spams and scams. That's not to mention that there are obviously increasing spam messages on social media as well. Social media is another aspect that this bill is probably not going to delve into, but I have no doubt that many small businesses who are using social media platforms to do business are constantly receiving so many spam messages that it's interrupting the transaction of their daily business. Something has to be done to assist the many small businesses that are relying not just on the social media platforms but also on their mobile phones for transactions. We must not forget the vulnerable in our communities and the small businesses in our communities that are very much vulnerable to the scams. As we continue to make interaction with government and other important agencies and businesses easier and more effective, we must put in safeguards to protect Australians. This bill is a good step in achieving that protection, so I will definitely be supporting it. 18:04 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong One afternoon I found myself listening to Ben Fordham's podcast on 2GB, where I heard the story of Paul Trefry. Paul is a small business owner who received a text message from ANZ informing him that his business account had been compromised. The message offered him two choices: cancel his credit card or transfer money to a new account. Paul chose the latter and transferred $130,000 to a bank account. The problem was that the message was not from ANZ. His phone said it was from ANZ, but it was from scammers, and the bank account wasn't his either. Paul lost $130,000. For any business, let alone a small business, that is a significant amount. This is not just Paul's story; it's the story of many Australians who have fallen victim to similar scams. Since raising this issue in the House Economics Committee last year, I have heard countless heartbreaking accounts of people being swindled out of their life savings. Their stories have taught me that anyone, regardless of age or background or education, can be deceived by these sophisticated criminals. When the government came to office, Australians were losing over $3 billion a year to scams. This is a staggering figure, and what's more alarming is that the amount lost to scams has doubled each year from 2019 to 2022. Online, text message, phone and even in-person scams have become primary avenues through which Australians lose their money. These scams strip individuals of their financial resources, they destroy lives, erode trust and undermine confidence in our economic and communication systems. In 2019, the losses to scams were already in the billions but by 2022 the amount had skyrocketed to over $3 billion. Victims of scams often face more than just a financial loss; they experience a deep sense of violation and shame, with many struggling to recover their confidence and rebuild their lives. As scammers siphon billions from the economy, the ripple effects are felt right across sectors, affecting everything from consumer spending to the stability of small businesses and driving up small business costs as well. When individuals lose their savings, they cut back on spending, which in turn affects businesses that rely on consumer confidence. Small businesses like Paul Trefry's can be especially vulnerable as a single scam can mean the difference between staying afloat or going under and completely ruin a small business's cash flow. Moreover, as we had from the member for Fowler, scams disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in society—the elderly, those with limited digital literacy, those with English as a second language, and those who are already struggling financially. These individuals are often targeted by scammers who exploit their trust and lack of familiarity with digital platforms. The consequences can be devastating. In response to this growing crisis, our government has taken decisive action. Under our leadership we've established the National Anti-Scam Centre, which has a ready made significant strides in the fight against scams. One of the centre's early successes with the implementation of measures blocked more than 533 million scam texts between July 2022 and March 2024. The establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre was a key promise we made to the Australian people and one that we've delivered. It's a world-leading initiative, bringing together public and private sector partners to work together to disrupt and stop scammers in their tracks. It's a model of what can be achieved when we work together across sectors and tackle complex problems. We've also bolstered the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's capacity to shutdown fraudulent websites, further cutting off scammers avenues to exploit vulnerable Australians. The establishment of Australia's first SMS sender ID registry is another crucial component of this strategy, and why I'm commending this bill to the House today. This registry, which is at the heart of the Telecommunication Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, will play a pivotal role in preventing scammers from impersonating trusted brands through SMS, just like they did with Paul. This approach is comprehensive, combining technology, regulation and public awareness to create a multilayered defence against scams. We recognise that no single measure can eliminate the threat entirely, but by attacking scammers from multiple angles, we can significantly reduce the risk to Australians. The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority to establish and maintain a register of legitimate sender IDs. This means that businesses and entities will be able to register their sender IDs and telcos. They'll be required to check SMS messages that use these IDs. If a sender ID is not registered, the telco could be required to block the message or tag it as fraudulent. This is a significant step forward in our fight against SMS impersonation scams. It will decrease the frequency and impact of these scams on consumers by disrupting the business model of these criminals. Moreover, it will provide legitimate brands and agencies with greater protection against bad actors who seek to exploit their trusted names. One of the key aspects of this bill is its flexibility. The ACMA can engage a contracted provider to help maintain the register, and the use of the register can be made either voluntary or mandatory, depending on the government's decision later this year. This flexibility ensures that we can adapt to the evolving landscape of scam tactics and stay one step ahead of the scammers. The significance of this register cannot be overstated. By creating this legitimate, centralised database of sender IDs, we will make it much more difficult for scammers to impersonate trusted brands, and the scammers will then go elsewhere. Let me share another story. It is of Diane and Mon, who were recently targeted by a similar scam. They received a text message from what appeared to be HSBC AU stating that a new login to their mobile app was detected in Perth. The message advised them to call a number if it wasn't them, which they did. The call played HSBC hold music and, when a man answered, he claimed he was from HSBC and that he could help with the issue. Diane and Mon, local constituents in Bennelong, were concerned. They were eager to protect their life savings and they followed the instructions of the impersonator. They provided their username and authenticated this by reading back SMS codes sent to their phone, believing they were dealing with a legitimate bank representative. Suddenly the call ended abruptly. Sensing something was wrong, they called back and were shocked when the same man answered. It was then that their suspicions were confirmed. The scammer admitted that their money had already been stolen. Devastated, Diane and Mon immediately contacted HSBC and, after being on hold for 20 minutes, they reported the unauthorised transaction and requested that both their accounts and the recipient's HSBC account be frozen. To their dismay, HSBC staff informed them that she could not freeze the recipient's accounts. Diane and Mon felt abandoned by the very institution they trusted to protect their money. Their experience is a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities in our current systems and of the urgent need for stronger protections—in particular, for banks to do much more to protect their clients' money. Had this SMS ID register been in place, Diane and Mon would never have received that text message purporting to be from HSBC. The scammer would not have been able to spoof HSBC's sender ID and the fraudulent message would likely have been blocked before it even reached their phones. This is the protection that this bill seeks to provide. This has been happening for too long. It has taken this government to do something about it. One of the main tactics scammers use is to trick people into thinking they are receiving a message from a trusted source. By establishing this register, we can help prevent fraudulent messages reaching Australians in the first place. This bill sets a precedent for how we can protect Australians and their money from other forms of communications and scams in the future. As technology evolves, so too do the methods that these scammers use. It's not about addressing the current threat; it's about building a framework that can be adapted to protect Australians from future scams. The government is continuing to fight scams. In addition to the measures in this bill, we're committing an extra $67½ million over the next four years to protecting Australians' money. This funding will support the introduction of mandatory industry codes to combat scams, enhance regulators' enforcement capabilities and launch a public campaign to educate Australians on how to identify and protect themselves from scams. The importance of public education cannot be overstated. While technological and regulatory measures are crucial, they must be complemented by efforts to raise awareness amongst the public. That's why, when local MPs do scams forums in their communities, they are so well attended. The government and its agencies simply need to do more to help educate our communities on simple steps they can take to ensure that their money remains safe. Scammers often rely on the ignorance of their victims—people who may not be aware of the latest methods or who may not know how to authenticate the message that they've received from a website, through social media or by email. By educating the public we can empower Australians to protect themselves and reduce the impact of scams. Importantly, too, we're working on establishing tough new mandatory codes that will place robust obligations on key sectors, starting with banks, telcos and, of course, the digital platforms that we know carry a lot of scammer messages. These sectors are the most commonly targeted by scammers, and it's essential that they take more responsibility for protecting consumers. In both circumstances I gave you today, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, you could argue that the bank was aware that these methods were being used to scam those people out of their money. The mandatory codes seek to address that and ensure that banks are fine. In some circumstances, banks will need to refund customers when they are aware of the scams that are taking place. These mandatory codes will be a significant step forward in holding banks, social media and telcos accountable for their role in preventing scams. We want to create a safer environment for consumers to transfer money and to protect their life savings. The stories I've shared today were shared with the authority of the local constituents who contacted me. We need to share these stories because they highlight the urgent need for stronger protection and proactive measures to safeguard Australians from the ever-evolving tactics of scammers. I urge the entire parliament to support this bill and show these scammers that we're taking a stand against criminals who prey on our most vulnerable citizens, and we're sending a message to the world that Australia will no longer be an easy target for their craft. 18:17 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Mobile phones have changed the way we live, but not always for the better. As phones moved from the kitchen counter to our pockets we became more accessible, easier to contact and, unfortunately, more accessible by scammers. Last year we saw a 37 per cent increase in SMS scams reported, compared to 2022. This year alone we've, tragically, seen almost $6 million lost in SMS scams. Of course, not all scam losses are reported, so the real cost is far greater. But what is crystal clear is that scammers are exploiting the digitisation of our economy. The Albanese government recognises this and is acting. We understand that urgent action is needed, and that is what this bill is all about. The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 will require the Australian Communications and Media Authority to establish and maintain an SMS sender ID register. This register will be used to verify senders like myGov, AusPost and, importantly for Victorians, toll providers. It will help protect Australians from sophisticated scams which target our most vulnerable. It is hard to imagine an Australian who has not received a scam text message purporting to be from a bank or a toll road operator. I've received them myself, and I hear from so many of my constituents who are fed up with the onslaught of scams targeting their inboxes. That's why, under this bill, telcos would need to confirm whether messages using sender ID were being sent by authorised parties, and, if not, they would be blocked or include a warning. These fraudsters operate domestically and overseas and use sophisticated technologies to trick innocent Australians into divulging sensitive information in order to steal their money or their personal information. The consequent financial losses and stress suffered are immense. At a time when the cost of living is putting pressure on everyday Australians, our government is acting to reduce the anxiety of potential identity theft, financial loss and personal safety. Earlier this year, the Minister for Financial Services and I hosted a scam awareness forum in Torquay, where we heard firsthand about these challenges from community members. One community member said they'd lost thousands of dollars to a scammer. Many others in the room shared similar stories about friends and loved ones. It was not easy to hear. People have lost their life savings. It does take courage, however, to admit you are a victim of scammers. I understand that people will feel uncomfortable admitting to a packed-out room that they've been scammed, but it's so important that victims reach out for help and share their stories. It's these stories that help inform police and government, at all levels, on how to tackle scammers and put in place support for victims. I am proud that our government has listened and is acting to put in place more supports for scam victims. I am also proud that these measures are having an impact in bringing down losses to scams. Data released by the ACCC in April this year indicated that estimated scam losses went down by 13.1 per cent from 2022 to 2023. However, while losses have decreased and progress is being made, Australians are still losing way too much. There is no silver bullet to eliminate scam activity. Scammers will adapt and utilise new methods to contact would-be victims, but the creation of this register will complement our anti-scam measures and make it much harder for scammers. Once operational, this register will be used to decrease the frequency and impact of SMS impersonation scams on consumers. It will increase protections for legitimate brands and agencies against bad actors impersonating them, disrupt the business models for SMS impersonation scams, restore public confidence in SMS as a communication channel and ultimately make Australia a harder target for scam activity. We know the changes arising from the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 can't be put in place overnight, but that's why the bill allows for a deferred commencement date. As part of that, we'll make clear that, if the provisions do not commence within six months, they will commence on the day after the day ending that period. This recognises that the ACMA will require time to finalise technical and operational aspects of the register, which are likely to be complex. According to this bill, it provides that the ACMA must establish the register as soon as is practicable. The bill defines what is meant by a 'sender identification' and will also provide the Minister for Communications with the authority to determine other communication services which employ sender identifications that may be registered in the future. The essential elements for applications, refusal of applications, prevention of impersonation of sender identifications and removal of entries from the register are explicitly embedded in the bill. However, new powers will be conferred on the ACMA to make determinations. These will set out further requirements for access to the register and its administration and operation. This is important work and will complement the progress our government has made in combating scams. Our government has already delivered an additional $67.5 million in the 2024-25 budget as part of our second tranche of reforms to crack down on scammers. The success of our phase 1 measures reinforces our resolve to take on these criminals. The budget funding supports the introduction of mandatory industry codes and increased use of the secure e-invoicing network. Under our government, industry codes will start with banks, telcos, social media, digital messaging and search advertising services, and we will require these groups to have measures in place to prevent, detect, disrupt, respond to and report scams. This will be complemented by strong regulator enforcement action, penalties for noncompliance and victim compensation where wrongdoing occurs. The government will also provide regulators with $37.3 million to administer and enforce the mandatory industry codes. This includes $12.4 million for the Australian Communications and Media Authority over four years to oversee the review and improvement of its existing scam call and SMS code for telcos and boost reinforcement action to prevent, detect and disrupt scams. The budget also provides $180 million for the ATO to identify and stop fraudsters, which will include IT system upgrades to block attempts to break into taxpayer accounts. There's clear evidence that our scam crackdown is working, but losses remain far too high. As our economy continues rapidly down the path of digitisation, we can expect this pace of change to accelerate. The profound impact of this change has a direct bearing on the expectations of government and business. The first responsibility of government is to keep its people secure. The responsibility of business is to abide by the laws of the country in which they operate. Globalisation and its impact on society, culture and the economy challenges the way government and businesses approach these responsibilities, but it does not displace them. Time and distance have become compressed. Information is transmitted around the world through digital platforms and SMS in an instant. Goods are purchased online in a global marketplace before being delivered rapidly to your door—even in the smallest regional towns. Retail transactions and finance are now overwhelmingly digital. All of this is facilitated by enormous amounts of personal data being stored and shared throughout the economy. The pandemic only accelerated this trend, and that's why we are implementing an ambitious anti-scam agenda. It's why we continue to introduce strategies that protect people's hard-earned savings and make it harder for scammers to operate. We want to be a world leader when it comes to scam prevention. This bill will go a long way towards making that a reality and saving many people from losing their life savings. 18:27 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby More and more Australians are being hit by scams. In 2023, Australians lost $2.7 billion to scams. We made over 601,000 scam reports, an 18.5 per cent increase on 2022. This is despite the ACMA blocking more than 533 million scam texts and 1.9 million scam calls between July 2022 and March 2024. Investment scams caused the most harm, taking $1.3 billion. Remote access scams took $256 million. While we may laugh about some of the more obvious scams going around, they work, otherwise they wouldn't still happen. These are not some random efforts. These are highly targeted and coordinated efforts. Some years ago, when I was doing some training on cybersecurity, I heard about a scam group operating out of Europe that had been broken up. The leads consisted of a couple of PhDs in computing and four PhDs in psychology, because we, humans, are the weak link and the scammers know that social engineering—conning us and convincing us to click on the blue link—is the key to accessing our bank accounts, accessing our credit cards, accessing our identity information, accessing our confidential information and accessing our computers at home and at work. Increasingly I hear from people in Boothby about how convincing these scams are. They mimic banks. They mimic government departments, utility companies and retailers. They look convincing and, given so much of our lives are conducted electronically via SMS, email and online access, we are all vulnerable. Unfortunately, people receiving these SMS impersonation scams are often deceived into responding or taking action suggested by these text messages. One click is all it takes when you're tired or stressed, or when you're expecting a message and something comes through at just the wrong time and looks convincing, and these scammers make it their business to look convincing. That one click can put you into a world of pain, with the loss of life savings, identity documents, and confidence. But playing whack-a-mole with scammers is a losing game. As fast as one number is blocked, they come through on another. There has to be a better way, a way that can give Australians confidence that when they get a text it is really from a known entity—or they can ignore it, or block and delete. As part of a comprehensive range of measures the Albanese Labor government is putting in place to combat scammers— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The member for Boothby will resume her seat. It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Boothby will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 100 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Economy, Cost of Living 100 18:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to raise my grievances in relation to a number of issues, in particular the current state of the economy and the stress of the cost-of-living crisis impacting so many. Inflation remains sticky at 3.8 per cent, above the target range of the Reserve Bank. Interest rates are also high for many, putting pressure on household budgets. Food prices have risen sharply in the last three years, fuelling cost-of-living pressures and food insecurity. Affordable housing is becoming a thing of the past. Small businesses are being suffocated by red tape, and many face the threat of closure. There have been some initiatives of late to provide cost-of-living relief, like the stage 3 tax cuts coming into effect, cheaper medicines and energy bill relief. But the sticky tail of inflation still means many in the community feel like they are falling behind—and they are. I should note that very few in this place are in fact addressing one of the biggest drivers of inflation—the incredible rise in insurance costs, and those insurance costs being incredibly driven by increasing risk, which is driven by our changing climate and warming; I will have more to say on this. In relation to housing, the government is not thinking quickly or creatively enough about how to further drive down costs for Australians. All the policies to date are focused on supply. While increasing supply is of course essential, this is not a short-term fix. Supply will take years to achieve, and in the meantime the government has resisted all other policies that could increase the availability of supply in the short term other than just from a construction model. Rental inflation is expected to go as high as it was during the 2008 global financial crisis, and remain elevated until 2026. This puts pressure on the around one-third of Australians who rent. In Warringah, nearly 35 per cent of residents are renters. We know new dwelling approvals are declining just as our housing shortage is reaching crisis levels. A lot needs to be done. As I've called for previously, we also, whilst looking at those challenges, need to address the increase in climate risk. We need to make sure that we, whilst putting measures in place, incentivise landlords, home builders and people in regional and rural communities to decarbonise. It is absolute folly if we continue building as we have and do not address the risks that are increasing already. We need to urgently assist households to get off gas. How many times have I sat in this place and listened to absolute exaggerations in relation to gas, all because of stakeholder interest and political gain. Some of the things I've had to listen to in this place beggar belief. We absolutely must help households get off gas. They are inflationary prices impacting their bottom line. We need to help households to get to rooftop solar and batteries and to electrify their cars, water, home heating and, in particular, cooking. That has huge health benefits but also cost-of-living benefits. They will save huge amounts of money. The input is from nature; the input to all those devices is free. Whilst we currently rely on systems like gas and petrol that are all inflationary, that are hurting households, if we can assist households to get off all those mechanisms or current fuel sources we will in fact address inflation and help households with the cost of living. Decoupling energy from fossil fuels will deliver savings and provide Australians with energy independence and protection from inflationary pressures. That is why the big legislation in the US is called the Inflation Reduction Act. But there is very little conversation about that here from the government, and certainly not from the opposition. By helping households to decarbonise, we can reduce the average energy bill by around $1,100 to $1,800 a year with rooftop solar. That saving goes up by around $500 to $1,600 simply through having more efficient electrical appliances, and by even more if you add insulation to and improve energy efficiency in homes. But the government has been slow on the uptake in this regard. We could be doing so much more than we are. And, whilst we hear criticism from the opposition around inflation and the cost-of-living crisis, we see no solutions and certainly no acknowledgement that with decarbonisation and electrification of households come cost savings that help with the cost-of-living crisis. The Household Energy Upgrades Fund announced in the 2023 federal budget took a year to begin disbursing funds, such as the $60 million for the provision of low-interest green loans for residential energy efficiency upgrades. That is just too slow. We are of course still seeing households struggle, and it takes so much time for them to get access to this funding. Similar to households, small businesses are suffering enormously from high interest rates and high and rising insurance costs. I've had so many emails from local businesses concerned about the rate of increase in the cost of insurance for their businesses; high energy prices; staff shortages; and low consumer confidence. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They make up 97.3 per cent of businesses in Australia. In Warringah, they are a vibrant hub of economic activity. We have over 8,000 small employing businesses, with another 12,000 sole traders. But right now 43 per cent of small businesses are not breaking even. In March this year, COSBOA reported that a thousand businesses became insolvent, the worst number on record since 2015, yet there hasn't been anything to address that from the Minister for Small Business or the Treasurer that could give the sector and small-business owners any confidence that they have the attention of the government. Small-business owners are paying themselves less than the average salary and are working longer than the median hours of work just to keep the lights on. The most recent numbers from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry paint an even grimmer picture. Forty-five per cent of small businesses have considered closure in the last 12 months, 82 per cent of small businesses said red tape is having a major or a moderate impact on their operations, and 50 per cent of small businesses said the overall impact of red tape has increased in the past 12 months. I've been critical of the government over its successive IR changes and the difficulties with the small-business provisions. They do impact the efficiency and the economic viability of so many small businesses. Small businesses urgently need relief, but unfortunately, of late, that sense of urgency is nowhere to be seen from the government—nor, I should say, from the opposition. Everyone comes to this place claiming to be here on behalf of small business, but whether they are in government or in opposition there are no solutions being put forward to actually help small businesses. It's this sense of policy malaise that continues to turn so many voters away from the major parties—and we're going to see this accelerate as we get closer to a timeline for the next federal election. There are lots of promises, but what we really need to do is look at the record: what has been happening over the last few years, and who is actually delivering any real outcomes for those that are hurting? I should also say that the way the major parties are conducting themselves is quite telling. During this cost-of-living crisis, when Australians and small businesses are looking for assistance, what has been reported and leaked to the media over the last several weeks is that, in considering the 'once-in-a-generation reform' of our electoral laws, the core element seems to be to amend donation limits and increase public funding for, essentially, the major parties. It is ironic, during this cost-of-living crisis, when Australians are crying out for support, that the focus of the government at the moment appears to be on making electoral reforms in relation to donations—putting in place spending caps and donation caps—to entrench the incumbency advantage for the duopoly of the major parties while making up for that lost income through increasing public funding. Voters are deeply cynical about that and will, I think, see through it as they abandon the major parties and look for alternatives and to the crossbench, which is swelling. I encourage communities to think about that. Are your representatives genuinely putting in the representation and putting forward the arguments that benefit your community, as opposed to a party view, or are they just taking power or holding on to power? We know that many are feeling the pinch from prolonged inflation and rising costs in housing, power bills, insurance and groceries. It's galling to see now that this proposal has been floated. Of course, the community overwhelmingly have said that what they do want is politicians to hold themselves to the same standard as exist in Consumer Law when it comes to advertising. Voters of all persuasions have said they want truth in political advertising—they want protection so that they can't be scammed of their vote by lies and political advertising. The big question for the government, when it reveals its legislation, will be: will they respond to the call of the community? (Time expired) Tangney Electorate: Arts and Culture 101 18:40 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney A few months ago I attended the Alfred Cove Art Society exhibition in my electorate of Tangney. The exhibition was part of the Melville Open Studios event, where local artists open their studios and spaces to the public. As I walked through the exhibition, it was so inspiring to see the work of some of the many artists in Tangney—landscapes that capture the beauty of Western Australia, portraits that express people's heart and soul, and still-life paintings with such beautiful details. One watercolour caught my eye: three koi fish swimming in the bluest of waters. Titled Pool Party, the painting was bright and joyous but also had a sense of calm. It brought a smile to my face. I purchased the painting and it's now hanging proudly in my office. When I went to collect the painting I met the artist, Monique Taylor. Monique shared with me her love of watercolours and some of the children's books she has written and illustrated. I particularly liked her book about two robots who are learning to write in English. It brought back memories of when I was studying English at TAFE and learnt about parts of speech. Art helps us connect and communicate in ways that sometimes words cannot. Last month I also attended the opening of Chang Yoong Chia's exhibition, titled Stories of Journeys from Malaysia to Australia, at the Wireless Hill Museum in Tangney. Yoong Chia is an artist from Malaysia, and for his exhibition he listened to the stories of Malaysian migrants to Australia. Yoong Chia's work brought back memories of my own migration. It made me reflect on the different but similar journeys that I share with some of the many migrant families in Tangney—how we set down roots, how we work hard to give our children better opportunities and how we join our tradition of char kway teow with the new custom of flat whites. Two of the paintings brought tears to my eyes. In one, there were the words of a young child: Before coming here, Dad worked non-stop and only rest during Chinese New Year. Coming here we got to go on holiday. I got to know him better. Yoong Chia painted a child and father relaxing in a field, their car parked nearby. Looking at the painting was like looking in the mirror. When my family and I moved to Australian in 2002, I finally had the time to spend with my family. We drove to the Pinnacles and Monkey Mia, and we spent a week together, talking, eating and laughing. To me, Yoong Chia's painting reflects the values of family. A second painting described the journey of migration. After living overseas, we migrants return home to the cemetery to see our parents. This painting was also about me. I lost my mum during COVID. I had not seen her for three years, and the next time I went to see her, I went to a cemetery. My heart was heavy as I looked into this painting with a sadness that is unspeakable. At the same time, I felt a common bond that many of us migrants share, and this gave me comfort. The Albanese Labor government is making a strong investment in Australia's art, entertainment and culture sectors. We are investing in supporting our live music scene, promoting Australian stories and supporting our brilliant arts training organisations. These investments include $115.2 million for Australia's eight national arts training organisations. We need to ensure that we are nurturing the next generation of creative talent. A $14.5 million investment is being made to support the production of Australian children's screen content. Just as I saw myself reflected in Yoong Chia's paintings, it is important for Australian children to see themselves reflected in the stories they watch or experience. A $9.3 million investment will help the National Film and Sound Archive expand and enhance its capacity to store highly flammable nitrate based cultural heritage material belonging to our national collecting institutions. We are investing in live music, with $8.6 million for the Revive Live program to provide essential support for live music venues and festivals showcasing Australian bands and artists and $5.2 million to expand and develop the Canberra and Darwin symphony orchestras. These investments build on progress the Albanese Labor government has already made. It is important for us to continue to tell Australian stories and to support the Australian artists who tell these stories in such inspiring and powerful ways, whether they be stories of migrants or a beautiful mosaic that shows the incredible culture and diversity of Tangney. An upcoming concert in Tangney by the Rotary Club of Attadale will showcase music from some of our favourite films and operas. I've met many writers in Tangney. They have important stories to tell, inspired by their own stories and journeys, by the beauty of Western Australia or, sometimes, by the common feelings we have that make all of us human. I recently attended an exhibition of paintings and ceramics at Atwell House in Tangney. The exhibition Earth, Fire and Water showed works by members of the Alfred Cove Art Society and the South of the River Potters Club. These two great local arts groups collaborated for a powerful exhibition. I enjoyed seeing how each artist interpreted the theme: abstract landscapes or boats out on the water. Familiar places and objects were captured in a new way. I had a chance to meet many of the artists in Tangney. They are people from all backgrounds and all experiences. At the exhibition I saw how the artists and their works all came together. It is not only the works of art that touch people. The artists themselves also leave a deep impression, with different stories and perspectives coming together in one place. I saw fellowship and community, and asked the artists about their work and the process and thinking that goes into each piece of art. I also saw reflection as the artists shared their stories and supported each other. I am proud that there are so many talented artists in Tangney and proud that we have many arts organisations who do everything from organising exhibitions to providing classes for artists, both young and old, in all stages of their careers. The arts provide opportunities for the Tangney community to not just come together and celebrate but also learn from one another. And, when we learn from each other and from each other's experience, we can better understand each other. I believe our Tangney artists are an important part of our community. We need to continue to support the arts and our artists. Thank you, all, for all your powerful work. PsiQuantum 103 18:50 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I take this opportunity to speak about a controversial investment decision made by the Albanese Labor government which raises serious questions. This is Labor's decision to invest almost $1 billion of taxpayers' money into the American company PsiQuantum. This deal has been cloaked in secrecy from the beginning, with the Albanese Labor government and the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, going to great lengths to avoid scrutiny and transparency. It is clear, though, on the available evidence that this investment does not meet the normal standards of contestability, fairness and probity that would be expected from a funding decision of this size. According to Minister Husic, there's nothing to worry about. In the Weekend Australian recently he said: We put the proposal through an exhaustive assessment led by the public service and complemented by technical, legal, commercial and national security experts. Sadly, this perspective is not shared by many in Australia's quantum sector, nor is it supported by the evidence that the opposition has been able to gather through Senate estimates processes and freedom of information requests. What we've learnt is troubling. The Albanese government agreed to assess an unsolicited proposal from PsiQuantum as early as November 2022, nine months before the expression of interest process opened and six months before the National Quantum Strategy was released. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources entered into a non-binding agreement with PsiQuantum in June 2023, two months prior to the expression of interest process. All of this suggests that the expression of interest process was a reverse-engineered sham designed to cover up the reality that Minister Husic had already made his decision. I have written to the Auditor-General requesting that the Australian National Audit Office undertake an investigation into the Australian government's investment in PsiQuantum. I've asked a series of questions. Why did the government decide to make the investment in response to an unsolicited proposal from PsiQuantum? When did interaction occur between the minister's office and PsiQuantum's venture capitalist executives and lobbying firms, and what was the nature of that interaction? Why was the national interest framework not used in arriving at this decision? When did the government reach its decision to make this investment? How did the government assess PsiQuantum's claims, including but not limited to PsiQuantum's technology being able to deliver at scale in the timeframe that PsiQuantum claimed? Why did the government not, instead, decide to establish and announce a program to fund investments in quantum companies with publicly announced guidelines and invite any interested company to put forward an application to be assessed against the guidelines? Had the government reached its decision to make the investment prior to conducting the expression of interest process? Why did government officials advise companies other than PsiQuantum prior to the EOI that there was no dedicated funding available for Australian companies? Why did the government carry out extensive engagement with PsiQuantum prior to conducting the EOI process? Why was the EOI process secret and not publicly announced? Why was the EOI conducted through the sending of a single email, with no follow-up by the department to even ascertain whether the recipients of the email had seen it and opened it? Why were the EOI participants given only four weeks to prepare and provide their response when PsiQuantum had been given a period of some nine months to develop its proposal and to engage in extensive discussions about the proposal with the Australian and Queensland governments? Why were the companies which participated in the EOI process not given the same opportunities as PsiQuantum for direct engagement and discussion with Australian government officials and representatives up to and including the Minister for Industry and Science? Why were the companies which participated in the EOI process not given the same opportunities as PsiQuantum for direct engagement and discussion with Australian government officials and representatives up to and including the Minister for Industry and Science? Why were the companies which participated in the EOI process specifically directed, as a term of participating, that they could not directly approach nor speak with Australian government officials? Were the terms of the EOI biased towards PsiQuantum's technology and claimed delivery dates? How did the government assess the value for money of the EOI proposals and PsiQuantum's proposal? What criteria and weighting were used? Was the negative impact on the Australian based quantum companies considered when allocating funding to a United States company? Why was a technology agnostic expression-of-interest process not considered at the start of the process? Why was the EOI limited by the requirement to deliver a quantum computer at the earliest possible time only, rather than considering a weighted assessment of time to deliver, amount of local supply chain production in Australia, likelihood for the technology to be approved, upscaled and delivered on the proposed timeframe, capability usefulness, total investment required and amount of funding remaining in Australia? Did EOI applicants receive a fair process in terms of application and assessment? Was it a foregone conclusion, given the terms of the EOI, that the funding would go to PsiQuantum and that none of the companies invited to participate had any real or serious chance of being selected through the EOI? Why was Export Finance Australia directed to commence work on the investment into PsiQuantum before the EOI had concluded? Was the EOI nothing more than a sham? How did the government satisfy itself that the optimal path to support the quantum computing sector in Australia was to invest a large amount in one company and in one technology, and how was that company and that technology selected? Why did the government not choose to make smaller investments across a range of companies, consistent with the approach being used by a range of other governments? Why was a test bed not considered? What initial and subsequent advice did the department and the Chief Scientist provide to the minister's office on the draft and final versions of the National Quantum Strategy and regarding providing funding for PsiQuantum? Did Minister Husic's senior adviser, Ellen Broad, have a conflict of interest, given that she has a close personal friendship with a senior Blackbird employee, Kate Glazebrook, and given Blackbird is an existing investor in PsiQuantum and given the investment would likely have increased the value of Blackbird's existing holding in PsiQuantum? Did Minister Husic take appropriate steps to recognise and manage the actual or perceived conflict of interest faced by his senior adviser, Ellen Broad? Was the decision to make the investment influenced by the fact that PsiQuantum engaged as its lobbyist the firm Brookline Advisory, whose partners included Lidija Ivanovski, a former chief of staff to current defence minister Richard Marles, and Gerard Richardson, a former senior adviser to current Treasurer Jim Chalmers? Was the decision to make the investment influenced by the fact that Minister Husic's senior adviser, Ellen Broad, has a close personal friendship with a senior Blackbird employee, Kate Glazebrook, and given Blackbird is an existing investor in PsiQuantum? Was the decision to make the investment influenced by the fact that a senior Blackbird executive, Kate Glazebrook, was appointed to advisory boards by Minister Husic, and Blackbird is an existing adviser in PsiQuantum? Curiously, in response to my letter, Minister Husic has made the public statement that he welcomes further scrutiny and welcomes a review being conducted by the ANAO. His words were, 'Bring it on.' On this point, I agree with Minister Husic; let's bring it on. The fact is that taxpayers deserve and are entitled to a root-and-branch review of this deal to ensure it meets the relevant standards. The fact is that Labor has made a big and risky bet with taxpayers' money. The evidence suggests we have a minister who has arrived at a personal decision, having met PsiQuantum, having had a number of direct one-on-one meetings with PsiQuantum's senior executives and having visited PsiQuantum at its facilities in Silicon Valley in January 2023. All the evidence suggests that, as a consequence of this sequence of events occurring, the minister has arrived at a personal view that it would be an excellent idea for the Australian government, jointly with the Queensland government, to invest almost $1 billion of taxpayers' money into this company. Taxpayers deserve to know whether this is in fact what happened, and they also deserve to know why it is that the normal safeguards and processes which apply to funding of this kind and certainly of this scale do not appear to have been followed. Taxpayers deserve to know why it is that a senator official, the deputy secretary of the department of industry, subsequently left the department of industry, was on leave of various kinds for 12 months and then turned up in another department at first assistant secretary level. Is it true, as some have suggested, that this was a consequence of him providing advice that Minister Husic did not wish to hear, when he briefed against the advisability of this investment? The evidence points overwhelmingly to a captain's pick being made. This government has let its enthusiasm get ahead of its judgement and, as a result, exposed the Australian taxpayer to large and unnecessary risk. Australians deserve better, and I again call on the ANAO to conduct a full investigation. Early Childhood Education 104 19:00 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Great news: early childhood education workers are set to get a well-deserved 15 per cent pay rise. For the typical early childhood worker, this means an extra $103 a week in their pay packet by the end of this year, increasing to an extra $155 per week in their pay packet by December 2025, and this also applies to out-of-school-hours workers. This is fantastic news for these valuable workers—around 200,000 people across Australia whom we entrust with the early education of our youngest Australians—and it's long overdue. We've spent decades, literally decades, talking about how female dominated professions such as early childhood education are underpaid, but doing nothing about it. We have spent decades talking about how valuable workers in early childhood education are and how they need to be skilled because early childhood education is really important for our children and can set them up for life. Of course, these workers worked through the pandemic, demonstrating that they are vital frontline workers not only for our children but also to enable the necessary parts of the economy to keep going. We want early childhood education to be a career of choice. We want people who are passionate about education for young children to see this as a viable long-term career. We want them to be able to earn a good living, with a well-paid, secure job that they want to stay in. We want early childhood workers to keep investing in their own education and skills because they see a long and bright future doing what they do so well—educating young children. We don't want these valuable workers drifting into other sectors because they can get paid better. We don't want them drifting off into other sectors because they can't see a career in early childhood education. This pay rise puts early childhood education back on a par with where it should be, a valued profession and a career of choice—and more workers in the early childhood sector means more childcare places for children. This package helps strengthen the supply of quality early childhood education and care workers in the sector. I speak to many early childhood centres in Boothby who tell me they have space for more children but not enough staff—because there is a productivity angle to this as well. A pay rise for early childhood education workers is good news not only for the workers themselves; it's good news for all of us, whether we have young children or not. We also know that early childhood education is good for children. Children experiencing extra years of high-quality early childhood education have additional opportunities to learn and develop. It helps children make friends and socialise generally. It helps them learn routines and self-regulation, and it helps them feel safe and secure. It helps them to learn independence and emotional resilience, and it helps with their transition to school. Children who have experienced high-quality early education exhibit less impulsivity and have more advanced expressive vocabulary and greater reported social competence. When I was campaigning prior to the 2022 election, I constantly heard from all sectors of the community about the shortage of workers. Businesses large and small, from all sectors, told me how the previous government had neglected their vital need for skilled workers and how this was limiting their ability to grow or even exist. As a country we need more workers, and parents choosing to return to work is the low-hanging fruit in terms of increasing the workforce. The ability of families to choose if it is right for them and their family for both parents to return to work means more workers—often skilled, experienced workers—and that's really important to our country and really important to our economy. And, of course, for families wanting to consider allowing both parents going back to work, the availability of good-quality early childhood education is vitally important. An estimated 1.2 million families use early childhood education, plus all of those who use out-of-school hours care. I take a whole-of-life view on this pay rise. I often speak of my experience working in women's homelessness, and the women we saw had often experienced a lifetime of gender disadvantage. They worked in female dominated sectors such as early childhood education. When they turned up in the homelessness sector, they had experienced a lifetime of lower wages and often insecure conditions. They consequently had little savings and little superannuation. It's very hard to financially recover when you are 60 or 70 years of age. The Albanese Labor government has managed to get the gender pay gap down to 12 per cent, the lowest ever in Australia. This 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood education workers will undoubtedly improve the gender pay gap even further, and it will change lives. This is good for workers. It's good for families, it's good for children and it's good for our economy. I met today with some of the early childhood workers who were here in parliament celebrating their win, along with the United Workers Union. They should be congratulated for their campaign, literally over decades, to get a decent pay rate that appropriately values their skills, their commitment and the importance of the work they do. I'd like to take the time to thank the United Workers Union and the workers. Their campaign has changed the lives of over 200,000 workers across Australia, and, of course, we hope more will be joining them. This is the value of unions. It's the value of collective action. It hasn't been easy for them over this long period of time, and this is the importance of staying on message. So congratulations to them. This is life changing for them. It's life changing for families, but it also is life changing for our country. Distilling and Brewing Industry 105 19:07 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to make some important comments about the brewing and distilling industry in Australia which has hitherto been a flourishing part of cultural life, in regional Australia in particular. There are over 600 distilleries and breweries around the country and many of them are in the Lyne electorate. Before I go on, I'll just give a big shout-out to our famous local brewers and distillers from Port Macquarie down through the Lyne electorate. We have Coastal Brewing in Forster-Tuncurry. The Coastal Brewing company has a very established range. There's Moorebeer Brewing and Black Duck Brewery in Port Macquarie. We have got the Tinshed Brewery in Dungog and the Farmer's Wife Distillery in Allworth, and in Forster we have the separate and brand-new Wharf St. Distillery. They are all locally grown and flourishing distillers and brewers who supply the local market. But they are under pressure like everyone in this industry because of the effects of inflation. When you think about it, a brewery or a distillery, whether on a small scale or a large scale, is subject to all the vagaries of every other manufacturing process. They're heavily dependent on expensive kit. They've got to provide property to have a brewery or a distillery. The actual setup has a huge capital cost. There are all the ingredients—the distilled water, the hops, the grains that are involved, the biologicals and, for those making spirits, the raw alcohol. Barley and hops have gone up in price, as have aluminium cans. There have been massive electricity price rises. Last but not least, and most significantly, there's the excise. It goes up twice a year, according to CPI. Due to the current situation of high inflation that we have in this country, this is really starting to squeeze a lot of businesses, sending them to the wall. There have been huge increases in excise over the last three years with the high inflation rate. In 2023, the increase was 11 per cent for beer in just one year. It was 12 per cent in two years and 16 per cent in three years, and just in February this year it was 1.8 per cent, then two per cent in August a few days ago. The cost of beer is not elastic. You can't keep charging more and more for beer. It's like milk for Australians. Beer is part of the cultural heritage. In moderation, it's great, and it's part of Australian culture. We've found out from the tobacco excise and taxation that, if you really start taxing too much, you end up with an illicit trade, and that's what has happened. Receipts for taxes on nicotine have been cut significantly because of—chop chop—illegal tobacco that's being brought in along with vapes and other things like that. But I think the government should realise we are now the third-highest-taxing country in the world for beer and spirits. We won't have a vibrant industry if we send breweries, particularly small, boutique breweries, to the wall. We already have one in Port Macquarie that I didn't mention because they're no longer trading. They used to be called The Little Brewing Company, and their eventual death knell and closure happened because they couldn't get staff. That was because all their staff had gone off and started working in the NDIS, because the payment in the NDIS is above most skilled, semiskilled and trade-certified workers in many other industries. Our budgetary income for beer and spirits was meant to be $2.65 billion, but the last budget downgraded it already, so we are at a tipping point where more breweries and distilleries in country areas will close. Prominent cases of them closing were reported in the Financial Review, but they were very big. They were more than just a small brewing company, but they have come unstuck because of their tax obligations. It's a really complex industry to do well in. You only survive if you have great product. But, as I mentioned, too much taxation will kill industry. We all want alcohol in moderation. I'm not advocating for no excise; I'm just saying, 'Give them a breather.' There is a very important rebate for these small brewers so they can compete with the big international brewers who are dominating the Australian market now, and that is a remission scheme for the excise. If they're a small-scale brewer, they pay the excise like everyone does, but the first $350 is rebated. That's why we have a flourishing small brewery and distillery industry in Australia rather than having just the big international firms. But that isn't indexed. With all those two, three, five and six per cent increases twice a year, things are tipping, and I don't want to see these thriving bits of cultural life go. It goes with dining and tourism, and my electorate is full of tourism. It's a coastal electorate. All those areas are big businesses in a local sense, and it would be a tragedy if they were to suffer. I'll put this marker in the ground now. I'll be calling on the Treasurer and the finance minister in the next budget to announce a freeze on the excise so that we can keep our local brewers and distilleries. We've been in the wine industry through the restriction of trade through tariffs. We've seen that, whether a tax is from the country you're trying to sell to or from your own country, it will cruel our industry. We need to look at it, because we will be in the same situation as after raising the taxation on tobacco. It'll go underground, there will be illegal distilleries, and jobs will be lost. I commend this issue to others in the building. I'm sure you've all got some breweries and some distilleries in your own electorates; they are big employers. The value of small breweries and distilleries is that there's not some distant faraway shareholder that's taking profits out of the business; all the people working in them live locally and all the money circulates into the local economy. It's much better to have these little breweries rather than huge, international breweries off in faraway capital cities, where you can still get a beer and you can still buy a gin and tonic but it's not the same because you're not helping your local economy. I commend this issue to many on both sides, to take the time to educate the financial ministers in Finance and Treasury that they are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, so to speak. Western Australia: Manufacturing, Western Australia: Energy 106 19:15 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I stand here tonight, as I do every day, as a proud Western Australian—someone who will stand up for WA. I get WA, I understand the WA regions, and I understand my electorate. I make it a point to listen to my community, and every day I work hard to create a better future for everyone in my great state. So when the Leader of the Opposition talks about WA and the big decisions we need to secure our future, I'd like to take the opportunity to respond. You might remember what the opposition leader had to say about Labor's critical mineral investment program. It's a bit confusing because he says one thing on the east coast and another on the west coast. On the east coast he calls it 'tax cuts for billionaires', but over in WA what does he say? It's the same old line that he pulls out when he doesn't know what to say: 'We'll have more to say about this.' I see this as being a tricky opposition leader. When will he come clean? Just a few weeks ago he was slamming Labor's plan to build a better future made in Australia, calling it 'tax cuts for billionaires'. He and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that they would oppose it. Are they prepared to support the resource sector—a really important one in Western Australia—or is it more of the old criticism? He doesn't get that Western Australians believe in a future made in Australia. We are the engine room for the country, we are the powerhouse and we want to build more right here in WA. The pathway to net zero emissions runs through the plains of Western Australia. The pathway for Australia to achieve net zero emissions runs through WA not just for the country but for the world. But, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand that. He doesn't grasp how important the resource sector is to WA or that it is the backbone of livelihoods across our state—and, frankly, I don't think he wants to understand. I was born in the goldfields—born and bred with deep roots. I was born in Kalgoorlie and grew up in a nickel mining town called Kambalda. My family made their home there, and I will always feel connected to regional WA. But I'll also say that you don't need to be from WA to understand WA. Former premier Mark McGowan was born in New South Wales—a Welshman—and he understood Western Australians. He would listen and he would act. I note that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is another New South Welshman, and, again, he is a leader who listens and acts—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who pays lip service to the communities of WA. Let's not kid ourselves; this isn't the first time the Leader of the Opposition has flipped on key policies when things got tough. Remember when he was against the tax cuts? He was against giving every taxpayer—that's 3.6 million Australians—a tax cut on 1 July, but now he's not opposed to it. Then there's nuclear energy. Last year he said that he was against large-scale nuclear energy. But now he is for it, even though he hasn't figured out the cost for it; he has no clue what it will cost Australians. The Liberal leader won't tell us how much it will cost to build these nuclear reactors, how much more expensive nuclear power will make our bills or how many reactors will pop up in communities across Australia. He mentioned there would be one in Collie, in the south-west of Western Australia, but did he choose to face the people of Collie on his recent visit to WA? How weak and cowardly. Is it that he couldn't be bothered, or wasn't interested, or didn't care? He won't tell Australians the true cost of his nuclear plan, so let me spell it out. The Smart Energy Council says that building seven nuclear reactors would cost taxpayers up to $600 billion while only securing a measly 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy mix by 2050. That's $600 billion! Nuclear energy is the most expensive form of energy, meaning that Australians would pay up to eight times more for their electricity. My last bi-monthly electricity bill was $260. That's for a three-by-one on a battleaxe block. Eight times that would be $2,000. Ain't nobody got dollar bills for that! This risks the energy and economic security of the nation. CSIRO experts have pointed out that nuclear reactors wouldn't be up and running until at least 2040. Australia simply can't wait that long. Under the LNP, 24 coal plants announced that they were shutting down, and by 2035 90 per cent of Australia's coal power will be gone. If the plan is to transition coal towns to nuclear towns, there will be at least a five-year gap. I don't know if you've lived in a town where industry gets ripped out and there are no jobs in the community. It's pretty soul destroying. It's a really tough place to live. This is not the transition to the clean energy economy that we need. The Australian Energy Market Operator has made it clear: we need to replace the energy capacity before it disappears. The cheapest way to do that is through reliable renewables, coupled with storage and firming energy, and that is the best solution to make this happen. Pausing the delivery of reliable renewables—instead promising untested, uncosted, experimental nuclear reactors—will cost Australia. The coalition will put our future energy security in jeopardy. This is the reality. I don't want to go there, and I don't think Western Australians want to go there. Nuclear energy is too slow to keep the lights on, too expensive to build and too risky for Australia's energy needs. The Leader of the Opposition and the coalition are hiding the details on how much in taxes this would cost and how much bills would rise for these seven risky reactors, but what we know from this nonsensical plan is that, in two decades, the coalition's policy would be the most expensive energy there is. I was honestly astounded when I heard about this policy, and initially I thought it was a joke. The scary thing is that this is not a joke. This is not an episode of Utopia; this is the opposition's policy. The thing that I'd say, from a Western Australian perspective, is that Western Australians spotted a fake leader in the previous member for Cook—no comment on the current one—and previous Prime Minister. They will identify this as fake energy policy. This is something that they will see. If the next election is a referendum on nuclear energy, we will win that. We will earn the vote and make sure that people understand what the truth is. Let's talk about what Labor is doing on energy. One of the first things we did when we stepped into power was announce a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. We have an ambitious target of 82 per cent renewable energy. From an energy bill perspective, we are also cutting people's energy bills this financial year. If you live in Western Australia, you will get $700 off your electricity bill. In your July bill you would have seen $350, and in your December-January bill you'll see another $350. It's an example of the state and federal governments working together. Our renewable energy plan is the only one that is backed by experts to deliver clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy for Australians. Under Labor, we have seen a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national grid; record investment in battery storage; over 50 renewable projects greenlit—enough to power three million homes; and more than 330,000 rooftop solar installations. That was in the last year alone. Power prices are a serious issue, and Australians deserve a plan to bring them down. That's exactly what we're working on. This is in contrast to the Liberals' obsession with nuclear, which is risky and costly, and it is Australians who will end up paying for it. Their antirenewables stance ignores the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of energy and that, the more renewables we get into the system, the more prices will come down. The Albanese government's reliable renewable energy plan is the only one that's supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy systems that Australians deserve. The Albanese government is pumping big money into renewables to boost Australia's reliable energy capacity, create jobs and attract investment. This not only helps lower prices but also cuts emissions. We're working hard to create a fairer, kinder, greener and better future for Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next setting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:26