COMMITTEES

2024-08-15 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 15 August 2024

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee 1 Membership 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator McCarthy has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories and that Senator Grogan has been appointed a member of the committee. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS National Security 1 09:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House: (1) notes that the Albanese Government has so far granted almost 3,000 visitor visas to individuals from the Gaza warzone; (2) notes that in question time yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that his government has done this under 'exactly the same arrangements as previous offshore refugee and humanitarian visa grants'; (3) notes that this is not true; (4) notes that for the Syrian refugee intake, rigorous security checks were conducted prior to arrival in Australia at a number of key visa processing points, this included the collection and checking of biometric data against Australia's security agencies and those of our international partners, these checks were supplemented by interview with Australian departmental officers, where claims and identity were assessed; (5) notes that these measures have not been undertaken under the Albanese government's change of policy to grant visitor visas, including to people who have expressed sympathy for the Hamas terrorist organisation; and (6) therefore requires the Prime Minister immediately attend the chamber and explain why he misled this House. Leave not granted. Mr DUTTON 00AKI It's no surprise that the government would seek to gag this debate, because it's not a debate that they want to have. This is an issue of national significance, and the Prime Minister should be here— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. You don't have leave. There's no motion. The Leader of the Opposition will need to move a motion rather than just giving a speech. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion— That this House: (1) notes that the Albanese Government has so far granted almost 3,000 visitor visas to individuals from the Gaza warzone; (2) notes that in question time yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that his government has done this under 'exactly the same arrangements as previous offshore refugee and humanitarian visa grants'; (3) notes that this is not true; (4) notes that for the Syrian refugee intake, rigorous security checks were conducted prior to arrival in Australia at a number of key visa processing points, this included the collection and checking of biometric data against Australia's security agencies and those of our international partners, these checks were supplemented by interview with Australian departmental officers, where claims and identity were assessed; (5) notes that these measures have not been undertaken under the Albanese government's change of policy to grant visitor visas, including to people who have expressed sympathy for the Hamas terrorist organisation; and (6) therefore requires the Prime Minister immediately attend the chamber and explain why he misled this House. This is an egregious breach of what is in our country's best interests. This Prime Minister has one charge, the first and most important charge: to keep our country safe, and he has lost control of the national security agenda. The Prime Minister of our country came into this parliament yesterday and clearly demonstrated that he had no idea what our security agencies were doing. He had no idea how to manage the program. What we know is that this is an Andrew Giles special. Andrew Giles, the disgraced and now sacked immigration minister, brought in 152 people— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will pause. The member for Newcastle, on a point of order? Ms Claydon 248181 I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition to refer to members by their correct titles. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will use the correct titles. Mr DUTTON 00AKI The disgraced and now sacked Minister Giles was responsible for releasing 152 hardened criminals, noncitizens, from immigration detention into the Australian community when he didn't need to do so. Government members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI I hear the cries opposite. Go and talk to the elderly lady in Perth who was attacked by one of these people who had been released by Minister Giles and to the others who have fallen victim to these hardened criminals since they were unnecessarily released by the Albanese government. Not only was that botched, but now we know that 3,000 people were issued with visas and that 1,300 of them have been allowed into our country—not under the refugee and humanitarian program but on visitor visas. Some people have tried to equate this to the number of visitor visas that have been issued to people from Israel, which is an absolute outrage. When comparing people who come from Israel on a visitor visa, the comparable statistic is to the number of people who have come from London or the number of people who have come from New Zealand or the number of people who have come from Jordan on a visitor visa to our country. Israel is not run by a terrorist organisation. Hamas is a listed terrorist organisation. A government member interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI I notice the Labor member there scoffing at that suggestion, but the fact is that Hamas is a listed terrorist organisation. The Israeli government is a democratically elected government. They are an ally of our country. They have helped thwart terrorist attacks in our country. If you look at public polling in the Gaza strip today, between 40 and 75 per cent of people have sympathy for the Hamas terrorist organisation. Imagine if the Howard government or the Morrison government had suggested that we would bring people in who are sympathisers to Saddam Hussein or to al-Qaeda or to ISIL or to ISIS. There would rightly have been public outrage and condemnation by the Labor Party. But the Labor Party has changed their policy to allow sympathisers of a listed terrorist organisation to come here under a visitor visa. It's without precedent. I know that Minister Burke has been appointed to clean up the mess of Minister Giles, but the Prime Minister needs to come into this chamber to show the leadership and the strength of character that so far he has failed to demonstrate. The level of antisemitism in our country is at a record high. People in the Jewish community feel unsafe, and the director-general of ASIO has rightly raised significant concerns. The problem is that the Albanese government is contributing to social disharmony and to disruption in this country at a time when it's certainly not required. The Prime Minister has made a bad decision. The Prime Minister in this chamber yesterday misled the Australian public when he said that what is happening today is akin to what happened when we brought people in from Syria. It is not. When we brought people in from Syria, we staged them in northern Iraq. We brought people in, or we assessed people who were in Jordan and Oman. I was criticised at the time as the minister because 12 months down the track we hadn't brought the full number in, and that's because we were testing people's verification of the claims that they were making and of their identity and whether or not they were on databases that the United States held. The United States held the intelligence because they had fingerprints and DNA of IEDs and the like out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan. Ironically for this government, the Israeli government and security services would have the most significant holdings on those people who are sympathetic to Hamas and those people who would have been involved in, connected with or sympathetic to the attacks on kibbutzim and the attacks at the Supernova music festival, where 1,200 people were killed and over a hundred are still being held in the tunnel network. That people could be brought from that region and that people could not be interviewed or that the government didn't have a process in place where there were face-to-face interviews is a complete and utter abrogation and failure of leadership of this Prime Minister. The fact that this Prime Minister has not come from his office this morning down to this chamber to answer these claims and to defend himself shows how weak he is. The Australian public get it. They know that this country's been made less safe by Anthony Albanese. They know that this Prime Minister doesn't have the strength of character to provide the leadership to see our country through an uncertain period. For the Prime Minister now to have created this mess and not to be here to explain how he's going to clean it up shows how out of touch this Prime Minister has become and how he has failed his basic obligations as the Prime Minister of this country. Our country deserves strong leadership and the ability to make tough decisions which are in our country's best interests. This is not against people of a particular religious belief. This is not against people of a particular political persuasion. This is about keeping our country safe, and Anthony Albanese has failed the Australian public and he should stand condemned. The fact that the Prime Minister cannot come to this chamber and provide an explanation and an apology for his misleading yesterday is a true reflection on his poor character. We deserve more as a country, and certainly every Australian deserves to feel safe but today, because of Anthony Albanese, the Australian public is less safe. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 09:11 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Yes, the motion is seconded. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister was asked a very simple question by the shadow minister for trade and tourism: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no individual who participated in or supported the October 7 Hamas terror attacks—the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust—has been granted a visa by his government? In responding to that question, he said, 'Exactly the same security arrangements as previous offshore refugee and humanitarian visa grants had been followed.' Yet when the member for Flinders asked the new Minister for Immigration the follow-up question, 'Have any visas for individuals coming from the Gaza war zone been granted without an in-person interview?' the new immigration minister could not answer that question. What he did was show that the Prime Minister had misled this parliament, because he had said all processes had been followed as they had been done previously. And they hadn't, because you did not do in-person interviews, as was the normal process that has been followed. That's why the Prime Minister should come in here right now and correct the record. This goes to his fundamental responsibility: keeping the Australian community safe. The sad reality from this government is that time and time again we have seen them failing at this No. 1 duty to keep the Australian community safe. 'Why are we asking these questions?' you might ask. We're asking these questions because the minister who was then in charge has shown that he was not up to the job. All this was taking place under the former minister, Minister Giles. We know that when Minister Giles was brought under pressure he was prepared to say things in this chamber which later FOI records have shown were not true. Now we have the Prime Minister doing exactly the same thing. We know Minister Giles didn't live up to the ministerial code of conduct that the Prime Minister put in place. Now the Prime Minister won't live up to his own code of conduct. That is why he should be condemned. What is at stake here? It's quite clear that what is at stake here is the safety of the Australian community. If you fail to undertake proper security checks then you leave the Australian community open to all sorts of possibilities that could occur. We've seen what has happened previously when the government has failed to keep the Australian people safe. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, we have a victim in Perth who was, sadly, a direct victim of the incompetence of those opposite. We do not want to see that happen again. We will ask questions, we will demand answers and we will keep going on this until we get reassurances from the Prime Minister that he will take this seriously. The first thing the Prime Minister should do is come and correct the record, because, if he comes and corrects the record, he will be admitting that the processes that were followed weren't the proper processes that were followed and that he was wrong in saying that exactly the same security arrangements were followed, because we know that is not true. Until he will admit that and until he demands that the new immigration minister does a proper and thorough check of everyone who has come into this country, the security of Australia is at risk. We have to remember that already 416 of those people who have come into Australia have sought to claim asylum. They have sought to claim asylum and they could be here for five to 10 years while that is processed. If you haven't done the security checks, if you haven't done the in-person interviews with those people, you are fundamentally putting the Australian community at risk. We say to the Prime Minister: where are you? Come in now and do your job. Keep the Australian community safe. 09:16 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah It's extremely concerning to see the opposition turn up today with this suspension of standing orders and the words and the rhetoric that we're hearing here. It goes directly against the advice of ASIO and the concern around the polarisation in our communities—that whipping up of a sense of fear and that inference that, for example, our services and systems are not working. What I'd like to share is the human story, the real story, about some of the people we're talking about and the lives we're talking about. Ms STEGGALL 175696 And I would ask you to be silent! I have the floor! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Cowper will cease interjecting. The member for Warringah will be heard, just as other members were heard, in silence. Ms STEGGALL 175696 In 2020, I met a man called Mohammed at the North Steyne Surf Life Saving Club. He had come to Australia under a visa approved by the Morrison government under the same systems. He came to participate in a surf lifesaving skills program. He wanted to give the children of Gaza an opportunity to learn water safety, to not drown, to have something positive on weekends. They loved that program. They attended. Unfortunately, after the horrendous events of October, that program, of course, ended. The bombing started. Many people that participated in that program have died. Many of the children have died. These are normal families. These are families that you are seeking to paint as all being terrorists, who should all be mistrusted and who are not worthy of humanitarian aid. Mr Dutton 00AKI Complete rubbish! Stop repeating the governments lines. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms STEGGALL 175696 We heard you in silence; you can hear me in silence. Stop being racist. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the call. Mr Dutton 00AKI That was an offensive and unparliamentary remark and it should be withdrawn. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. As I previously asked for the chamber to be silent, I'm just going to ask the member for Warringah, if she made an unparliamentary remark, to withdraw it to assist the House. Ms STEGGALL 175696 Could I have a clarification: is a description of language as being racist an unparliamentary remark? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. Just to assist the House so the debate can keep going, as has been previously ruled, I will just ask the member to withdraw and continue. Ms STEGGALL 175696 I will withdraw to assist the House, and I would ask that the same respect be shown to me to make my contribution to the chamber as you were afforded, something that does not seem to be a common occurrence when it comes to the opposition. This family, a beautiful family, where the father was trying to teach life-saving water safety skills to children of Gaza, came under the coalition. They were vetted by the same systems. Mr Howarth 247742 That's wrong. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie! If we can show more respect during this debate, it would greatly assist the House. Ms STEGGALL 175696 Again, it's very easy to dehumanise people seeking safety. It's very easy to paint them with the brush that somehow they are all to be feared. But the reality is that we are talking about parents caring about their children—children who are at risk and are in a horrendous situation. So, after the events and the horrendous situation they found themselves in, Mohammed sought to bring his family to safety, and he was able to. My community of the Northern Beaches—the community of North Steyne Surf Life Saving Club—rallied behind this family. They applied for visas, supported them and sponsored them, by hook or by crook. The details of how they were able to reach safety are quite incredible. They were able to get out, and I met with them only a few weeks ago in my office in Manly. They're beautiful children who deserve the opportunity to grow up, to go to school and to have an education. So to suggest that families like Mohammed's family are not deserving of being able to escape a war zone and seek safety for their children is offensive, and it goes against what it is to be Australian, which is to be there for people in need and to offer safety and security to people who deserve it. So I am offended by the rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition, the nature of this motion for suspension of standing orders and the continued attempts to divide Australian society on these lines and issues. We are better than this. We've just seen the Olympic Games, where we've got the idea that sport is bringing people together, and you are doing everything you can to separate and divide our communities. Ms STEGGALL 175696 We are a multinational, multicultural country, Member for Kennedy. We are multicultural, and it is important to remember that. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Kennedy will cease interjecting. 09:23 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.

The House divided. [09:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

85 AYES 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. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. 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. Scamps, S. A. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) 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. 53 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. 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. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. (Teller) 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

09:35 The SPEAKER 53517 Before members leave, if they can remain in their seats briefly. I want to remind members while you're all here of just a couple of standing orders that were breached during that last debate. I can appreciate the topic, and I can appreciate the emotion involved with the debate. Under standing order 64, in the House and the Federation Chamber, a member shall not be referred to by name but by one of the following forms as appropriate: the member's ministerial office, not their name but their ministerial title, or the parliamentary office that the office holds. Standing order 65 requires all remarks to go through the chair to make sure there is respect shown to each other and to the chair. And, under standing order 89, a member must not use offensive words against either house of the parliament or a member of the parliament. I just remind all members to refresh themselves of those standing orders for the remainder of the day. BILLS 6 BILLS Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 6

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:37 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. We have a good education system. But it can be a lot better and a lot fairer. This bill is an important part of achieving that goal. It is the first stage of the implementation of the Universities Accord. It will wipe out about $3 billion of HELP debt for more than three million Australians. It will introduce, for the first time, a Commonwealth Prac Payment. That is Commonwealth government financial support for teaching students, for nursing students, for midwifery students and for social work students, to help support them while they do the practical part of their degree. And it massively expands fee-free university ready courses—the courses that act as a bridge between school and university, and help ensure that more Australians get a crack at university and succeed when they get there. All are key measures recommended in the final report of the Universities Accord, led by Professor Mary O'Kane AC. Professor O'Kane is a former vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide and New South Wales' first Chief Scientist and engineer as well as the first woman to be a dean of engineering at an Australian university. Professor O'Kane was supported by an esteemed group of Australians, including: Professor Barney Glover AO, former vice-chancellor of Western Sydney University and now Jobs and Skills Australia Commissioner Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Macquarie Group the Hon. Jenny Macklin, former Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Professor Larissa Behrendt AO, the first Indigenous Australian to graduate from Harvard Law School. Larissa is a professor of law and the director of research and academic programs at the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at the University of Technology Sydney. the Hon. Fiona Nash, Australia's first Regional Education Commissioner, a former senator for New South Wales, a former Minister for Regional Development, Regional Communications and Local Government and Territories. The accord panel has provided us with a blueprint to reform higher education over the next few decades. Funding it and implementing it is going to take more than just one budget. We have to do this in stages. But we have bitten off a big chunk. Twenty-nine of the 47 recommendations, in full or in part. That includes the measures in this bill, which amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and related legislation. First, the bill amends the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, indexation methodology to be based on either the consumer price index or the wage price index—whichever is lower. This change applies to HELP (or what we used to call HECS), VET student loans, Australian apprenticeship support loans and other student support loan accounts. The big hike in student debt last year hit a lot of Australians hard, particularly a lot of young Australians. They've made their voice heard. The Albanese government has heard them and we are acting. That's why this bill will wipe around $3 billion in student debt for three million Australians nationwide—easing pressure on workers, apprentices, trainees and students across the country. It will provide significant relief for people with a student debt while continuing to protect the integrity and value of student loans systems, which have massively expanded tertiary access for more Australians. And we're going further. The bill backdates this relief for student support loans, including HELP, VET student loans and Australian apprenticeship support loans that existed on 1 June last year. In other words, we're going to wipe out last year's unfair CPI indexation rate of 7.1 per cent and replace it with the lower WPI rate of 3.2 per cent. It will also wipe out the 4.7 per cent from this year and reduce it to 4 per cent. For someone with an average debt of $26,500, they'll see around $1,200 wiped from their outstanding loan this year. For someone with a debt of $45,000, it will mean that their debt is cut by about $2,000. For someone with a debt of $60,000, it will mean that their debt is cut by almost $2,700. Corresponding changes are made to the VET Student Loans Act 2016, Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014, Social Security Act 1991 and Student Assistance Act 1973 to ensure that the revised methodology also applies to VET student loans, to Australian apprenticeship support loans, to student start-up loans, ABSTUDY student start-up loans and the Student Financial Supplement Scheme. Second, this bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to allow for grants to be paid to higher education providers for a new Commonwealth prac payment. This is an important reform. A lot of students tell me that when they do their prac they have to give up their part-time job, or they've got to move away from home or work fewer hours. Sometimes it can mean they have to delay doing their degree or not finish it at all. That's why for the first time ever, we are introducing this payment for eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students. This will give people who've signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country a bit of extra help to get the qualifications that they need. This is practical support for practical training. Just to give you one example of what this will mean, a few weeks ago I met a midwifery student at UTS who told me this: 'I'm a first-year mature-age midwifery student. This payment is going to be absolutely life-changing for me. As a mother of two small children, I'm often balancing between practical work, placement and looking after my babies. 'There are literally some days where I'm doing 16-hour days between my study and my work and looking after my children. 'I cannot wait for this payment to be available for myself and other future mature-age students who might also want to enrol in this course who previously couldn't financially afford it.' That's what this reform is all about. Third, the bill establishes a new Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding cluster for 'FEE-FREE university ready courses'. These are free courses that are effectively a bridge between school and university to give students the foundational skills they need to succeed at university. Some unis already offer these courses. Not many do it better than Newcastle university. They've been doing it now for 50 years. One in five people who get a degree from Newcastle university today start with one of these FEE-FREE courses. People like Jennifer Baker. Jennifer was a mum at 19. She worked in hospitality for 10 years. One day she saw an ad in the paper for one of these free courses. Now she's got a science degree, an honours degree, a PhD and a Fulbright scholarship. She's a computational medicinal chemist. That's what these courses do. And what this bill does is effectively uncap FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses, right across the country, giving more Australians like Jennifer that life-changing opportunity to get a crack at university. Another good example of this is the University Preparation Program at the University of Tasmania, where 51 per cent of students who go through the program are the first in their family to have ever attended university. And 39 per cent of them are from a low SES background. This reform is expected to increase the number of people doing these free courses by about 40 per cent by the end of the decade and double that number in the decade after that. Fourthly, the bill requires that higher education providers allocate a minimum of 40 per cent of the student services and amenities fees revenue that they collect from students to student led organisations. This will ensure that students have a significant voice in how their services and amenities fees are spent. Universities can apply to the secretary of my department for a transition period to implement this change. Any transition arrangements for public universities must be completed within agreed timeframes, up to a maximum of three years. These are all recommendations of the Universities Accord. And they are all important measures in and of themselves. But they are only one part of what we need to do to build a better and a fairer education system. Under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, the number of Australians finishing high school jumped from around 40 per cent to almost 80 per cent. That was nation-changing stuff. Now we're taking the next step. We've set a target for the nation that, by 2050, 80 per cent of our workforce hasn't just finished school but also gone on to TAFE or to university. If we hit that 80 per cent target the economic dividend for all of us is real. For individuals it means they earn more. The evidence is, if you go to university, you earn more. It also means as a country we earn more. My department estimates the economy will be better off to the tune of about $240 billion in additional income up to the year 2050, in today's dollars. So how do we hit this target? How do we build a workforce where 80 per cent have a tertiary qualification? The short answer is we can't unless we build a better and a fairer education system. And this bill is one part of that. What the accord says is, to hit that target, we need to break down two big barriers. One of those barriers is artificial, and the other one is invisible. The artificial barrier is the one that we've built for ourselves between vocational education and higher education. We're not going to fix the skills shortages that we have today, or the ones we'll have in the future, unless the two are more integrated, unless they're more joined up, unless we fix things like recognition of prior learning and make it easier for what you've learnt in TAFE to be counted towards a degree at university so you can get a degree quicker and cheaper. In the budget, we've announced more than $27 million in immediate measures to help break down the barriers between VET and higher education to ensure a more seamless and aligned tertiary education system, including recognition of prior learning and streamlining regulation for dual sector providers. And we're already doing things here. For example, we're working on the business case now for a national skills passport, an app where you can upload all of your skills, qualifications and work experience to make it easier for employers to find the people they need. We're also investing $650 million with the states to establish up to 20 centres of excellence. These are places where TAFE and uni come together, where you can get a certificate, a diploma or a degree. But what the Universities Accord says is, to get these two sectors really working more closely together, we need one body that can help better integrate the two and what they do. They recommended an Australian tertiary education commission to do this job. And that's what we're doing. We want to get this right so at the moment we're consulting with the sector about the detailed design of an Australian tertiary education commission. The second barrier that we have to break down is that invisible barrier that stops a lot of people, a lot of young people, from poor families, from the outer suburbs of our big cities and from the regions from ever going to university in the first place and succeeding when they get there. This bill lays the foundations to massively expand the number of people doing those FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses that I mentioned a moment ago. That's not the only thing we're doing. We've also released consultation papers on the detailed design of a new funding system for higher education that includes managed growth and a needs based funding system to help more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get the help that they need when they start a university degree to finish it. Feedback from stakeholders will be essential in helping to shape these important reforms. But this is also just the start. The truth is we're not going to be successful if reform only happens at the university gate. We've got to reform every part of the education system. That means fixing the funding for our public schools and tying it to practical reforms. At the moment, the number of students finishing high school is going backwards. In the last seven years it's dropped from 85 per cent down to 79 per cent. And in public schools that drop is even bigger, from 83 per cent to just over 73 per cent. We've got to turn this around. That's what the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement that I tabled in parliament yesterday is about. All up, I have put $16 billion of additional investment for public schools on the table. To put that into context: this would be the biggest increase in Commonwealth funding for public schools ever delivered. I've made it clear that this funding must be tied to reform. That means practical things like phonics checks and numeracy checks, evidenced based teaching and catch-up tutoring to identify children who need additional support and make sure that they get it. These are the sorts of things that will help more children catch up, keep up and finish school. But reform also doesn't start there. If we're serious about this, we have to go back even further. I think we all know that the first five years of a child's life are everything. Everything they see, everything they hear, everything they eat, every book that they open, every lesson they learn shapes and makes the person they become. And what we know is that, at the moment, it's children from poor families who are the least likely to go to early education and care, and the most likely to benefit from it. The Productivity Commission's final report is now on my desk, and it will help chart a course to building a truly universal early education and care system. If we're going to build that system, then the first step, the very first thing that we need to do, is to build the early education and care workforce. And that involves better reward for the work that our early educators do. That's why last week we announced the government will fund a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood education and care workers. This is good for parents. It's good for educators. It's good for our economy. And, most importantly, it's good for our children. The childcare debate is over. This is not babysitting. It's early education and it's critical to preparing children for school. The American President often makes the point that, if a child goes to preschool, they're 50 per cent more likely to go to college or university. So this isn't about changing nappies; it's about changing lives. That's what our early educators do. That's what our early education system does and can do. And if we're going to hit that 80 per cent target by 2050, then we need to be building a better education system for the children in our early education centres and our primary schools today. That means children like my little guy in second class or his little brother still in nappies. And it's for the babies who will be born tomorrow and the day after that into poverty and into wealth and everything in between. They'll grow up in big cities and outer suburbs, in the regions and the bush. And they'll go to school in the 2030s and TAFE or university in the 2040s. This bill is an important first step in making sure that we are ready for them. I commend it to the House. Debate adjourned. Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024 10

Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 09:54 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I'm pleased to introduce the Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024. This bill amends the Student Identifiers Act 2014 to extend the system of national unique student identifiers to the schools sector. A unique student identifier, or a USI, is a unique identification number which represents a single student as they move through various phases of their education. They are already in use in higher education and in vocational education and training. In fact, a USI is required for all students receiving government support in those sectors. This bill will make a USI, in the schooling context called a Schools Identifier, available to school students across the country. It'll allow them to have a single identifier which will travel with them during their schooling and into higher education or vocational education. And it's been a long time coming. It's been an initiative which also has enjoyed much bipartisan support. The concept was first agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2009. COAG said in its communique then that a national student identifier would 'further support a seamless schooling, VET and higher education experience for students'. A decade later, Australian governments agreed through the National School Reform Agreement to: [i]mplement… a national unique student identifier (USI) that meets national privacy requirements in order to support better understanding of student progression and improve the national evidence base. That's what the student identifier system is all about, and this bill's introduction today follows agreement by Commonwealth, state and territory education ministers in December 2022 to finally make this a reality. What this bill does is to set up the architecture for Schools Identifiers to be issued to school students through the existing Office of the Student Identifiers Registrar. The bill enables the registrar to assign, collect, use, disclose and verify Schools Identifiers for school students. By establishing this architecture, the bill meets the Commonwealth's obligations under the current National School Reform Agreement to get Schools Identifiers underway. What the bill does not do is implement the practical use cases for these Schools Identifiers. These will be for agreement between myself and my state and territory ministerial colleagues through the education ministers meetings. We've already agreed on one use—to allow a student's Schools Identifier to travel with them when they move from one school, one school system or one jurisdiction to another, supporting the robust and timely transfer of a student's information as they move from school to school. That's a start. But there is potential for future use cases to make a real difference in the education experience of our students and to help support them throughout their learning career. Some of the use cases that could be considered are: 1. Helping ensure that students don't fall between the cracks by supporting jurisdictions to monitor when they unenroll from one school but don't subsequently enrol in another. We saw instances of that through COVID, and School Identifiers could help to address this problem. 2. We can also look to improve the way teachers and parents can monitor a student's progress over time. For example, NAPLAN reports could show a student's progress over time and not just in the year they sit the test. 3. The Schools Identifiers architecture may also help us get a better understanding of student pathways, potentially allowing policy makers to better target the support they are providing to students and schools and improve the design of teaching interventions. 4. We could also look at linking Senior Secondary Certificates to the National Skills Passport currently under consideration. These are just some examples of the potential use cases that can help provide more support to students and give them a simpler and better experience in the Australian education system. But importantly, no use case will be implemented without the agreement of all education ministers. That is an important governance safeguard and an appropriate one, because we are talking about our children's data. For the same reason, the bill includes robust privacy measures to ensure that any data collected is secure and used only for approved purposes. Schools Identifiers, Student Identifiers and individuals' school identity management information are classified as protected information under the bill. This means that strict legislative restrictions apply to the collection, use and disclosure of this information. Any information collected by the Student Identifiers Registrar is subject to protections under the Privacy Act 1988. The bill identifies the circumstances under which the collection, use and disclosure of Student Identifiers is authorised. Any other collections, uses and disclosures will be unauthorised and taken to be an interference with an individual's privacy under the Privacy Act. The administration of Schools Identifiers by the education systems of the states and territories will also be subject to the specific privacy protections of those jurisdictions. In addition to these strong privacy protections, education ministers will establish a data governance framework for Schools Identifiers that will: 1. implement national uniform restrictions on the use and disclosure of Schools Identifiers and specified information associated with administration by education authorities; 2. set out educations ministers' agreed approach to the handling of requests for Schools Identifier data under the Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022; and 3. provide guidance and information on the use, data entry requirements and maintenance of Schools Identifiers. If that sounds like a lot of restrictions on the use of Schools Identifiers, it's because there are. It's very important that we protect the privacy of students whilst they benefit from the opportunities of a streamlined and unified identifier system. This bill satisfies the Commonwealth's obligations under the current National School Reform Agreement to set up the architecture for Schools Identifiers. It's a system with the privacy of students at its centre, and it sets up the opportunity for education ministers across the country to agree on measures which will harness that system to the benefit of all Australian students throughout their education. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 12 COMMITTEES Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Committee 12 Report 12 10:02 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, I present the committee's report entitled Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society: Interim report. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms CLAYDON 248181 by leave—The Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society was appointed to inquire into and report on the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society. The committee is required to present an interim report by today, 15 August. However, due to the former chair, the member for Jagajaga—and I want to acknowledge she's present in the chamber today—being appointed to the ministry on 29 July in her new role as Assistant Minister for Social Security, for Ageing and for Women, the committee was unable to complete a substantive interim report for the due date of today. So this short report is to satisfy the requirement placed on the committee by this parliament. I would like to put on record my appreciation and thanks for the significant work already undertaken by the former chair, all the committee members and the secretariat for this first part of the committee's inquiry. The committee received 217 submissions. We held five broad-ranging and insightful public hearings in June and July of this year, and the hearings traversed many of the inquiry's terms of reference. The committee heard from stakeholders ranging from large news organisations to small independent digital publishers, who discussed the important role of Australian journalism, news and public interest media in countering mis- and disinformation on digital platforms. They also discussed the impact of Meta's decision to abandon deals under the News Media Bargaining Code, and the tools available to the government to support the sector. The committee also heard from individuals and organisations about the impacts of social media as a whole. This included a wide range of topics. Witnesses focused a lot on online safety issues. These will all be the subject of the next stage of our inquiry for the committee to table our more substantive interim report. That, of course, will be followed by the committee's obligation to submit a final report, due in November of this year. That will consolidate all the evidence received throughout the inquiry and recommended actions that governments and others can take to ensure that Australia's online environment is safe, secure and protects and promotes Australia's freedoms, democracy and way of life. BILLS 12 BILLS Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 12

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

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

Second Reading 12 10:07 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein 'Our land abounds in nature's gifts, of beauty rich and rare.' Dorothy Mackellar got it right: we are indeed endowed with great and unique riches. Over the decades, Australia has ridden on the sheep's back and accelerated our prosperity courtesy of gold and, more recently, the export of mineral resources, including the energy locked into thermal and metallurgical coal. It's been a case of 'dig and ship', but those days are coming to an end. At some point, sooner or later, the nations with which we trade will no long be prepared to allow us to export our carbon pollution. Europe is already introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism to apply in full from 2026. The mechanism, as the EU says, is designed to ensure that the carbon price of imports is equivalent to the carbon price of domestic production and that the EU's climate objectives are not undermined. At some point, carbon border tariffs will spread beyond the EU and will threaten the value and quantity of the coal and gas exports which have underpinned our prosperity since the mining boom accelerated in the early 2000s. Fortunately, we do have a choice. We have a choice and an opportunity. As a continent, we are uniquely endowed with sun and wind. Make the right policy decisions and we can be a clean energy superpower. Indeed, it's probably the only way that we can endow our children with the prosperity we have been so fortunate to enjoy, with secure, well-paying jobs in clean, green technology and energy. Ignore the opportunity and we run the risk of condemning our children to being the first generation in recent Australian memory to have a lower standard of living than their parents. That's not the legacy I want to leave behind from my time here in parliament. That is why we are here right now debating and discussing the Future Made in Australia Bill, declared by the government to maximise the economic benefits of a net zero workforce and economy. But, as is so often the case, the devil is in the detail. Considering the existential climate crisis in which we find ourselves, and the decade of delay and denial of the previous government, market forces alone will not get our economy to net zero. Add to that the Biden Administration's Inflation Reduction Act and the billions of dollars of climate-related investment it's underpinning in the United States. Already, it's sucking investment out of Australia. Companies which had plans to innovate in Australia cannot resist the financial benefits and opportunities offered by the IRA. As well, China is throwing everything at carbon reduction technologies, with recent record investment in renewable energy. These international developments mean a new approach is needed, an overarching strategic partnership between government and industry here in Australia—one which coordinates efforts across government and forms a genuine partnership with industry, one that is underpinned by a strategy which invests in the renewable opportunities of greatest potential as long as they're driven by the evidence and the data, and with minimum risk to taxpayers. We've been down the path of picking winners before, and it took decades of effort by governments led by Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard to get us out of the blind alley of complacent underperformance. The Future Made in Australia legislation represents a step forward in this direction, but I would argue it's lacking in both ambition and rigour. Let's pause for a moment and check what we're up against. China is spending $650 billion a year on clean technology—much more than either Europe or the United States. China is way ahead of everyone else in taking up renewables. It has more than 50 per cent of battery installations worldwide, 70 per cent of wind turbines and 75 per cent of offshore wind. This legislation identifies two streams for investment. The net zero transformation stream appears sufficiently rigorous to meet its objective of triggering and facilitating net zero industrial activity. On the other hand, the defined scope—or lack of it—of the economic resilience and security stream risks misapplication. It's appropriate for Future Made in Australia to address gaps in Australia's economic security. However, narrowing its eligibility boundaries or clarifying the sectors it may target would enhance genuine public confidence. It's a welcome step forward that, for a change, the government intends to establish an evidence base before committing public finance. I have confidence that sector assessments will provide ministers with sound findings and policy recommendations, but my confidence ends there. Ultimately, as proposed, the sector assessment model lacks the rigorous safeguards necessary to inspire genuine public confidence in financing decisions made by ministers. I understand the intent of the provisions restricting ministerial influence or interference over the outcomes of a sector assessment are promising, but in practice ministers exercise influence over their departments—both direct and indirect. Sector assessments would be more appropriately conducted by an independent body, one free from the potential political preferences of any government now or in the future. As it stands, the Future Made in Australia legislation risks politicisation. Sector assessments are initiated exclusively by the Treasurer, which allows government to target Future Made in Australia supports towards sectors it determines are of most value. What's to stop the net zero transformation stream being used for financing of carbon capture and storage, or small modular nuclear reactors—despite the evidence that the first has yet to prove to be of value, while the latter have yet to advance far beyond the drawing board? There should be an independent body to scrutinise industry policy and the deployment of taxpayers' money at such scale. There are examples of this already across government—indeed, in the Treasurer's own portfolio. The Productivity Commission conducts assessments at the discretion of its minister but also holds the ability to initiate assessments of its own. This creates an appropriate degree of policy-making independence, and I urge the government to mirror this arrangement in the Future Made in Australia legislation. I'll be moving amendments to this effect. The analysis and recommendations made in sector assessments should be a pre-condition, not an option, for the government to commit funding to projects. It is proposed that sector assessments will be made publicly transparent after 30 sitting days, which is welcome, but the absence of a built-in link between findings and finance erodes the integrity of Future Made in Australia supports. The government has gone as far as to explicitly state in this legislation that all expenditure under the legislation will occur via separate existing law. So much for oversight; so much for accountability. Redacted transparency reports will do only so much. The composition of sector assessments similarly lacks definite boundaries. Consultation is not a requirement; nor are there any set criteria. A rigorous assessment process would be one directed to provide explicit final recommendations, detailed reasoning as to why supports are required and strict parameters of exactly what a support intends to achieve. Unamended, the Future Made in Australia legislation risks descending into a vaguely scoped slush fund. Support must be targeted to ensure it reaches the facilities and the workers with the most potential. A glaring omission in this legislation is any restriction on a minister's ability to direct finance to technologies or infrastructure associated with legacy non-renewable energy. For the public to have confidence in the government's vision of turning Australia into a renewable energy superpower, safeguards to this effect must be included in the very industry policy it claims will achieve it. A standalone clause expressly prohibiting the allocation of Future Made in Australia supports for fossil fuel projects and other technologies of dubious value is essential. I note the intention of fellow members of the crossbench, including the member for Clark, to move amendments to this effect. It is promising that this legislation incorporates what are termed 'community development principles', because one thing is certain: we will not make the necessary progress to achieve net zero by 2050 without the support of affected communities. That means paying special attention to their wellbeing and their welfare. Communities which have depended on the extraction of resources cannot be allowed to wither. There are opportunities for well-paid, secure jobs as clean, green technology is rolled out across the country, and special attention needs to be paid to ensuring that these communities not only survive but also thrive. The government insists that the community development principles will guide the implementation of Future Made in Australia supports, but here too the rigour is lacking. 'Principles' sounds good, but the government has, to put it charitably, provided next to no detail as to how these principles would be implemented or what precisely 'support' entails. Future Made in Australia support, it is stated, means, any support, 'including a grant, loan, indemnity guarantee, warranty, investment of money or equity investment'. Talk about vague. Funding recipients do not have to demonstrate adherence to the principles, either, nor a long-term commitment to them, nor any alignment with Australia's net zero climate targets. A rigorous implementation would see them apply over the life of the project, an approach I encourage the government to adopt in regulation. Glaringly absent in the community development principles as they stand is a substantial recognition of the role that women and underrepresented communities will play in our net zero workforces. We know that women and girls tend to be drawn to careers that hold a strong sense of social purpose. As Future Made in Australia supports are implemented, women must be included in trades, academia, engineering and all the industries adjacent to our electrification transition. Upskilling, internships and job placements are all ways Australia can reach net zero quicker, and I will be tabling a second amendment to this end during consideration in detail. There's an urgent need to invest in our net zero economy, but I remain concerned over the ability of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation to rapidly scale and meet their requirements under this legislation. Neither of these organisations were originally designed for the purpose of delivering grants or significant industrial investment. I note the government's decision to lift restrictions on use of consultants for these two organisations, which is at odds with its policy for the broader Public Service. Time will tell whether this measure is temporary and whether further scrutiny should have been given now to their ability to deliver this expenditure without developing a new reliance on private consultants. The Future Made in Australia legislation therefore is a mixed bag, with positive signals that are marred by some flawed governance arrangements. Australia has a long history of experimenting with industry policy, of bottomless grant funding and of federal programs used as slush funds. If Australia is to genuinely reach its potential to become a renewable energy superpower, our strategy must be fit for purpose. This legislation is enveloped in good intentions, but, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with those. I urge the government to consider the range of crossbench amendments that seek to make this legislation fit for purpose, effective and a pathway to the future prosperity of our nation. 10:20 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Future Made in Australia is a plan for a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy. There are three key components. Firstly, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 will embed the government's National Interest Framework to identify where Australia has comparative advantage in the net zero economy or an economic security or resilience imperative. Secondly, it establishes robust sector assessment processes to help inform rigorous government decision-making. Thirdly, it develops community benefit principles. The National Interest Framework includes two main overarching streams. The first stream is to intervene where there is genuine comparative advantage in net zero projects or where there is public investment likely to be needed for the sector to make significant contribution to emissions reduction at efficient cost. This refers to the fact that, in some of the instances where there is comparative advantage, there might also be a deficiency of private investment—for example, if there is early-stage risk or uncertainty. This is the kind of situation that we find in a lot of instances where there is new or emerging technology or where there might be possible externalities arising from research. The second stream relates to economic security and resilience issues. This covers sectors where there might be some level of domestic capability that might be necessary in order for our broader economy to be resilient, where there might be risks that might be existing or emerging and where the private sector might under its own steam be unlikely to deliver what our economy needs. I want to dwell for a moment on the second stream, the resilience stream. Some of the issues that arise in this regard arose as a result of COVID-19 and some of the issues that were exposed then. There was a realisation for many that Australia was not in a position to produce many strategically important goods and services and that our supply chains were exposed to disruption. Pandemics, of course, are just one example of risks to our economy and possible causes of disruption. There are others. War would be another. There are a number of macro risks. I think the issue goes deeper. Since then, there has been a broader consideration of the fact that some markets are vitally important to our economy and, indeed, all economies and that we live in an increasingly interconnected world. Critical minerals have also been increasingly identified as a possible risk to the supply chains that are going to become increasingly important to Australia. For me, these systemic issues of resilience raise the prospect of a range of possible policy responses. One possible response in relation to these systemic resilience issues is storage. Storage is a first and, in a sense, most obvious response. This might be appropriate where a good is reliant on very, very complicated supply chains that would be almost impossible for any economy to replicate in a long-term manner. Storage for me is something that we need to bear in mind as an option. Another would be bilateral agreements. This is something which came out during the response to COVID, where in response to some of the products that we wanted—for example, cutting-edge vaccines—bilateral agreements that might be negotiated in advance of an event such as a pandemic were a secondary policy response. I think bilateral agreements are something that we should definitely have in our policy toolkit, albeit that one must bear in mind that, at a time of crisis, bilateral agreements may be tricky to enforce at a time when some of the other parties that we have these bilateral agreements with will themselves be scrambling for the goods that are the subject of the agreement. A third policy tool that I think is worth bearing in mind is working with other countries to diversify production where that production is currently highly concentrated. For example, this might relate to—and I'll deal with this in more detail—the production of renewable energy products, or it might deal with certain high-tech products where rare earth elements or certain critical minerals are integral. Where there are production supply chains globally which are highly concentrated at particular points, it might make sense for a number of countries to join together to diversify at that pinch point. So that's a third strategy, and that is indeed something which I know Australia is currently working on with allies. Then, finally, there is increasing self-reliance in manufacturing, and that's obviously the subject of this bill. I think that there are a number of different strategies that we could explore as a country, and economic and social resilience could be supported by all of those. Increasing self-reliance in manufacturing is one of those. There are some goods for which that would only be a partial solution—goods where the supply chain is so complicated that it is, in effect, global. But increasing self-reliance in manufacturing is definitely a critical element of this. Indeed, increasing reliance in manufacturing could couple with the third strategy that I alluded to, which is to develop more diversified international supply chains. We could become an important part of those more diversified supply chains if we were to have a more robust and diversified manufacturing base here in Australia. I want to just make a few observations on why some of these resilience issues are arising. I believe that there are four key aspects to Australia's growing exposure to disruption in relation to strategically important goods. One is that globalisation has led to increasing specialisation. Specialisation is important in that it has led to higher productivity growth. It has led to small- and medium-sized economies, however, becoming increasingly—or, in some cases, totally—reliant on imports for many goods, including a number which could be considered strategically important. This specialisation trend has been sustained over the last century. On balance, I believe that it is a good thing and that it has underpinned global productivity growth, but it has created risks. Second, supply chains for many goods have become increasingly global. Even the humble Nutella now has an incredibly complicated global supply chain, which the Economist has pointed out in a number of cases. More to the point, the iPhone and many other critically important high-tech goods—many critically important parts of the future renewables economy—are also now subject to global supply chains. That can be a problem where parts of that supply chain are subject to market manipulation. The OECD estimates that 70 per cent of global trade now involves what they term 'global value chains'. This can be contrasted with more simple trade economies going back centuries, where it was much more a case of countries or economies swapping goods that one produced and the other didn't. Now we talk about many, many goods—and not just high-tech goods, although high-tech goods are critically important because they are of such strategic importance. A related and third point is that some intermediate inputs are now highly concentrated, including endowments and processing of some natural resources, such as rare earths, and the production of some key inputs—for example, in the production of medicines. This can leave upstream producers very exposed to market power. Finally, the production of some final goods has become highly concentrated. An example is the processing of rare earths used in the production of lithium batteries and many renewable energy mechanisms. This concentration has sometimes been a by-product of the productivity gains arising from specialisation. However, it has led to the supply of some goods being very vulnerable to the vicissitudes of bilateral relationships and, in some cases, has left markets subject to manipulation. Many of these factors that I've talked about—and many of these are multidecade factors or, indeed, from over the last century or more—have arisen for very good reasons, most particularly the productivity gains that I talked about earlier. However, while beneficial in many respects, many of these trends have also led to risks arising, particularly for small and medium economies. In classifying goods and services as strategically important or not, I believe Nutella is a strategically important good for my diet and my welfare in the mornings, but clearly there are many other, even more, strategically important goods, such as the telecommunications devices that I have talked about, such as high-tech goods relating to the clean economy of the future. But identifying goods as strategically important is not a simple binary exercise. It's going to be a matter of determining this according to a set of criteria and rigorous empirical analysis of where those strategic goods might have pinch points in their global supply chains. That's why the sector assessments that are a key part of this framework are so important. These sector assessments are going to be undertaken very rigorously, and it's very important, I think, that Treasury plays a key role in this so that it will bring not just high-quality empirical data but also the analytical framework. There are all sorts of goods that one might imagine could be critical to the resilience of our economy, like food and food packaging. We've talked a lot about the sophisticated products that are part of the clean energy transformation, as well as medical equipment—not just PPE equipment and sanitisers but also the constituent components of vaccines and medical treatments, glass vials, chemicals and medical equipment. That whole part of our economy, I believe, is also critically important to our resilience. The list of strategically important goods that might underpin our economic and social resilience is potentially a long one. We will need to intervene in these areas, I believe, in a very thoughtful way, because, for some of these goods, it won't be possible for Australia or, indeed, any single country to provide itself with end-to-end full resilience and full guarantees. So it's going to be very important for us to think strategically about how we intervene. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of strategies that can be undertaken to manage resilience. One is storage, and that is something which I think we should think about as one of our policy tools. One is international access, which can be managed to some degree through agreements. One is diversifying global supply chains, and I think, as I've mentioned, this is highly related to this fourth policy stream, which is enhanced domestic manufacturing capacity. In some instances, it will be diversifying global supply chains through us playing a key role. That might be, for example, in the processing of rare earth elements, and it might be that the diversification of global supply chains takes the form of Australia engaging in offtake agreements with other advanced economies such as Japan or the US and that it's only through those offtake agreements that the investment in upstream processing can become derisked enough that long-term investors will invest in those. When production becomes highly specialised, the prospects of building up alternative supply options, even in conjunction with other countries, can be challenged. I wanted to just look for a moment at rare earth elements because they are critical to some of the issues that we're looking to manage most immediately in relation to this broader strategy. If you look at rare earth elements—and the numbers vary a little depending on which year you look at it—there are four major producers of rare earth elements in the world as of 2022: China, with 70 per cent, the US, with 14 per cent, Australia, with six per cent, and Burma, with four per cent. Depending on exactly where you define the boundaries of rare earth elements and which year you look at, those percentages can change a bit. Suffice to say that not only in the production of rare earth elements but the processing of them, there is significant potential for there to be market concentration issues. We know that rare earth elements are critical for all sorts of things like automatic catalytic converters, fluid cracking catalysts in petroleum refining, and permanent magnets. They are also a key component of many renewable energy devices such as wind turbines and generators. A key issue for me is, firstly, how we de-risk the extraction and production of rare earth elements and also how we think about the processing of rare earth elements, an area where Australia has huge opportunities. When we look at this bill and we look at the development of a national interest test—which I believe is critical and a really important part of this overarching framework, based on comparative advantage and rigorous evaluation of resilience—coupled with sector assessments, this is going to be a significant step forward in Australia's consideration of its future economic development opportunities. 10:35 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Much as I like the member for Fraser, and I commend his admirable contribution to this debate—very thoughtful, as usual—I find it interesting that early in his remarks he spoke about the appetite for risk in the private sector and the concern that the private sector didn't want to take on as much risk as it sometimes needed to. I'd remind the member for Fraser and others that one of the reasons we have the economy we have today is because the private sector did exactly that. As I've said before in this place, when Apple were developing its computers or when IBM was developing its computers or Microsoft was developing its software, they didn't need government subsidies or government interventions. They took the risk to develop a technology that they believed would be to the benefit of our society. There are many, many other stories just like that right across this country. I met recently with a local business that builds the hydraulics for the swimming platforms on large pleasure boats. If you drove past their factory without walking in, unless you knew what they do you wouldn't know what they do. They export that product all around the world. It's not just used for boats here in Australia but it's exported to the world. Not only do they do that but they also make specialist high quality water filters and desalination equipment for those boats which are, again, exported around the world. Do they need government grants or government intervention in the market? Not on your Nelly. What they need is for government to get out of the way and let them do what they do. Because they are already world leading at what they do and compete in the global marketplace. I will commend the member for Fraser in his contribution because he actually failed largely to address any of the issues or any of the key points in this bill. I suppose it will surprise very few in this place, given the contribution of my colleagues previously in this debate, that the opposition opposes these bills. The reason we oppose these bills is that they are purely and simply a slush fund for the government to splash money around for their chosen political mates. If the government actually took a different tack and decided to get out of the way of business and let them do what they do, our economy would be doing much, much better. We have seen under this government's watch over the past two and a bit years that Australians have continued to dig into their savings to make ends meet and they've had to sacrifice a lot. But not only have individual Australian households had to do that; increasingly, Australian business has had to do that. And as I look at this Future Made in Australia Bill I have concerns that it is not going to solve the problem; it is only going to add to it. Australia has a proud and strong manufacturing industry, and it's something the coalition has always supported. The coalition had, until those opposite came into government and abolished it, the manufacturing modernisation grant. This achieved, for many businesses around this country, what this slush fund will not. I'll give you a couple of examples just for businesses in my electorate, Merino Country and ATP Science among them. Merino Country were able to adopt new technology in sewing machines and innovative production methods to increase productivity, profitability and competitiveness in the area of our economy of textiles and clothing, which we have seen hollowed out over the past 20 or 30 years. They expanded the business, created jobs and, importantly, created Australian produced clothing that has the potential to replace imported goods. That is the real future made in Australia that our manufacturers want to see. I'll give another example. Holmwood Highgate were successful in a grant through that fund for a laser cutter. The laser cutter is the largest flatbed laser cutter in the Southern Hemisphere. The productivity and throughput that it has created for that business has allowed them to be competitive and to be much more productive in the production of their bulk liquid tanks. Not only that, but, because of the capacity of that machine, they've been able to allow other businesses in our local community that require a piece of equipment that is a bit larger than what they have in their factories to come in and use that laser cutter to build and improve their productivity in their businesses. So, that grant to one business has not only benefited that business; it has also had a flow-on effect to many other businesses in our community, where they work together to use the advantage of that new technology. The modern manufacturing fund built on other coalition government investments in manufacturing growth and competitiveness through the advanced manufacturing fund, the advanced manufacturing growth centre, the entrepreneurs program and a $40 million investment in the innovative manufacturing cooperative research centre. But, again, the latter shut its doors after the Albanese Labor government came into power—but not before leaving behind a legacy of approximately $4.2 billion in additional revenue growth for our economy. How can our nation's manufacturers and companies like Merino Country, Holmwood Highgate and many others trust what this government is proposing and trust that it is going to do the job it says it's going to do? Far too often we see in this place the difference, the gulf, between what the government says it's going to do and what it actually delivers. Their favourite phrase in this place is, 'We're putting more money back into people's pockets and they're keeping more of what they earn.' Well, for those opposite, that is very far from the case. Under this government, with the increase in interest rates, the increase in the cost of living and the increase in electricity prices, whatever little crumbs those opposite have given back to the Australian people have been well and truly eaten up by the growth in the cost of living and then some. The average person in my electorate who has a mortgage is $30,000-odd worse off per year just through increased mortgage payments, let alone increased electricity and grocery prices. The bits that they've got back through the tax cuts and other measures are very far from even touching the sides. Hence, we have seen a huge fall in the amount of savings of ordinary Australians and businesses to fund those increased costs of living and doing business. Electricity is one of the things that are in everything that we do, and the increases in electricity prices and gas prices for our manufacturers have been extraordinary. Not only that, but, through the government's failure to control inflation, the costs of their leases have gone up. The costs of their inputs right across the board have gone up. Wages have gone up. We want Australians to be well paid and have good jobs, but we're seeing now, with the new industrial relations laws that are coming for small businesses in the next few weeks, the introduction of the capability for unions to turn up, knock on your door and say, 'We want a delegate in your small business.' Why would a small business that looks after its employees and is manufacturing the goods that this country needs need a union delegate? It doesn't. But all this additional red tape and these additional costs and expense are impacting our small businesses, and this Future Made in Australia fund will do nothing to address that. We've already seen a couple of the government's flagship projects for this come into question, such as the PsiQuantum quantum computing announcement. We question why that has been done in that way. They say they want to introduce a National Interest Framework, yet this quite obviously hasn't been through that process. More recently, we've seen the government's flagship solar scheme, Solar Sunshot, go up in flames as the cold, hard reality of the cost of doing business in this country is realised. What other things are there that the government is working on but hasn't done the work on to understand the cost to deliver what is proposed? The best thing we can do as a country is actually get out of businesses' lives and let them do what they do best, which is to provide high-quality goods and services that are both used here in Australia and exported to the world. They don't need the government in their lives to do that. There is an alternative, and that is what we did as a coalition when we were in government and what we propose to do if we are fortunate enough to get back into government. The coalition is looking at doing three things: we want to steer our nation out of the current domestic crisis that we find ourselves in under this Labor government; we will not simply talk about the challenges of our time but meet them head-on, with the action to carve out a more secure future for our country; and, most importantly, we will make decisions that set our nation up for success for the generations to come. We want the country to play to its successes and strengths. We want to build a nation which is a mining, manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse and a leader in technology and innovation. Do we have the capacity to do that? Absolutely. We've demonstrated over the last century or more Australia's capacity to do those things, more often than not without government intervention and interference. It is these things that we want to focus on to ensure that our country is a success. It requires strong economic management, not slogans and handouts. It's about getting back on track and getting back to basics. We need to reduce the inflationary pressure right across our economy. We need to remove the interventions and the regulatory roadblocks that are standing in people's way. We need to remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda. We need to provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all. We want to deliver a competition policy which gives consumers and small businesses a fair go and we want to ensure that Australians have more affordable and reliable energy. It's this economic plan, with tried and tested principles, which will restore competitiveness and rebuild economic confidence. I want to see a country in which we make things of high quality that go right around the world. This requires strong economic management and not slogans and handouts. As we've seen, a couple of their key projects are already at risk. This bill is euphemistically titled 'Future Made in Australia'. I am worried that it won't be a future made in Australia; it will be a future missing in Australia. That is what this coalition is determined to stop. 10:50 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell It is a pleasure to speak in support of this important bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill. The community I represent in this parliament has a proud manufacturing history, from established names like MasterFoods, Sanitarium and Eastcoast to promising local ventures like the Marshmallow Co. Food manufacturers on the Central Coast produced some of Australia's favourite foods, like Weet-Bix and tomato sauce. It's a vital industry that I've been advocating for since I arrived in this place. It's why I championed a food manufacturing hub at the last election and was so pleased that, with the election of this government, we secured funding to bring this industry supported project to reality. At the last census, more than 2,300 Central Coast workers were employed in food manufacturing. That was 2,300 local people working in food manufacturing. It is our largest but by no means only important local manufacturing activity. The Central Coast is home to skilled workers in timber production, chemical production, metal fabrication and machinery manufacturing. These industries are crucial to my community and our economy, as they are to the southern end of the Central Coast in the electorate of Dr Gordon Reid, the member for Robertson. But a proud history isn't enough to guarantee a stronger future. As the Treasurer said when he introduced this legislation, if we get stuck in the past, this country will be poorer. That's what we saw during the wasted decade under the previous government. I am proud to be part of a Labor government with a $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia budget package which gives life to this policy and to this legislation and, more importantly, has the financial resources to underpin it. We believe in backing Australian workers and businesses to grow and prosper and drive our economy. Government has a key role to play here in giving investors the clarity and the certainty they need to unlock growth and create secure, well-paid jobs for Australian workers, including in the regions. The Future Made in Australia Bill comes to this task in a well-thought-out way through a set of actions to support our diversified, resilient and robust economy. The National Interest Framework will help identify those areas of comparative advantage and economic importance. I note the presence in the chamber of my colleague Dan Repacholi, the member for Hunter. He's someone who has worked in industries like this and knows the real benefits to the regions like his and the Central Coast. COVID and conflict overseas exposed some of the weakest links in an economy that was left to become too vulnerable to supply shocks and other challenges. But this period was not followed by a return to normal, as households and businesses know. We are in the middle of an enormous transformation in the global economy and we have a unique set of advantages to make the most of it for individuals, families, our regions and our economy. The National Interest Framework and the second component of the bill, the sector assessment process, will help Australia seize the great opportunities available in the net zero and other growth sectors. Through Export Finance Australia and the new Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, investment will be able to flow to priority sectors and those with national economic importance. Our government is seeking to mobilise the private investment we need to benefit from the big changes underway in the global economic system. We can embrace this change and at the same time, with careful planning and foresight, make sure our communities are made the main beneficiaries. People, families and local businesses in urban Australia and in the regions across the country as the main beneficiaries: that's what our government wants to see. We want to see the economy work for the people and not the other way around. The local startups that I've met on the Central Coast that are bringing their innovation and ideas to reality can benefit our community and all Australians. The opportunities and potential need to be unleashed and can be through this type of careful planning. Under this legislation, a set of community benefit principles will mean public investment and the private investment which flows will support stronger communities on the Central Coast, in the Hunter, in Victoria and right around the country. For me this is where some of the great opportunities lie for the businesses and workers of Lisarow, of Berkeley Vale, of Wyong, of Killarney Vale and across the whole of the Central Coast. Investments made under this legislation will need to be made in ways that deliver benefits across the local community and economy—for example, in local industrial capacity and supply chains. I've had the opportunity over a very long time now to work with Central Coast Industry Connect, a local not-for-profit headed up by Frank Zammit and Ian from Herbie's Spices. They work they do to really bring together and harness the expertise, the skills and the potential of our local industries deserves this kind of support, and that's what they'll get under this government. The principles will mean that, where public money is invested, it is supporting safe, secure, well-paid jobs and skilling up local people to succeed in those growing sectors. The Minister for Education spoke earlier today about the University of Newcastle, its university-ready programs and how one in five commencing students across their campuses start through job-ready programs. I've seen those students at the University of Newcastle Ourimbah campus in places like food manufacturing. This is a pathway for local people to the skills and training they need for steady jobs and prosperous futures. In communities like mine, where persistent unemployment and economic disadvantage still shape the lives of too many people, these are the opportunities we need to grasp for a better, more positive future, especially for the regions. The other key focus of this legislation, of course, is to help Australia succeed in the transition to cheaper, cleaner energy, which is happening around the world. It would be unforgivable for any government to turn away from the natural advantages Australia brings to this moment such as the powerhouse regions like the Hunter. For our economy here in Australia and around the world, private capital needs an environment of certainty and a rational policy framework to give the confidence to invest in these big opportunities now and into the future. Under our government, that framework is being put in place through this and other legislation. Targeted government investment has always been part of the picture as industries mature in Australia and around the world. As a parliament, debate around the best way to benefit for this change should be our focus. As the National Interest Framework takes shape and we see the assessments from Treasury, let's look at the evidence and debate the best ways to realise the community benefits, which every Labor member here is determined to see and to realise in their communities across the country. I'd suggest to the opposition that this is a better use of their time than advocating for hundreds of billions of dollars of public money to go on a nuclear project that will never happen. It's not a serious policy. It's got no economic merit. They are desperate for another climate war. That's what they're after. I say again: if we get stuck in the past, this country, our country, will be the poorer for it. I want to see opportunities, incomes and living standards growing on the Central Coast and around the country not just in the short term but over the decades to come. This bill is good for Australians. It's good for the regions. It's good for our economy. I commend the bill to the House. 10:59 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest There are very good reasons for the coalition to oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill. I've listened to several of those opposite whose contributions to this debate show that they've never started a business themselves, never invested their own money in business, never employed people and certainly never dealt with the basics of running a viable business. The Labor members have talked a lot about manufacturing, but, to start with, any business, manufacturing or other, needs to get the basics right to start a business and to survive. Put simply, when my husband and I bought our dairy business, we had to focus on a couple of core basics: keeping our production costs as low as possible and growing our production. We had to generate enough income to pay our bills, pay off our loans, grow the business and pay for our cost of living. If we didn't do those things and make a profit, we would have gone broke. And, no, it certainly was never easy. The decisions of governments can make or break small and family businesses, as we're seeing with Labor's decision to shut down live sheep exports. What members opposite need to take responsibility for is that there is absolutely no question that the government's dreadful economic management has driven up the cost of manufacturing, particularly through the increasing cost of electricity, which is one of the highest in the top three costs in most manufacturing businesses. This has caused a tripling of manufacturing insolvencies since June 2022. For practical purposes, any future made in Australia first needs existing businesses to survive. This is an issue because around 19,000 businesses have become insolvent since Labor came to office. It's the highest insolvency number on record since ASIC has been collecting this information, and what a dreadful record that is for the Labor government. Part of that 19,000 insolvency number is the thousand Western Australian businesses that have ceased trading. Half of these are in the building sector at a time when we're short of housing. However, I have no doubt that even more businesses have gone broke or failed and simply had to shut their doors and walk away. In my own electorate, I've seen small and family businesses do exactly that because they've had no choice. Labor's bill, MIA, is accurately named because Labor has been and still is missing in action for small and medium family businesses and their workers. This bill is definitely missing in action for the food processing manufacturing sector and their workers, who are so critical in regional Australia and add value to the amazing products produced by our farmers. It's no wonder Labor never had any plans for these struggling family businesses and small businesses other than to progressively increase their costs of doing business, increase their personal costs of living, and generally make their lives harder and their businesses less productive. How many times did the Prime Minister promise to lower the power bills of Australians by $275 a year? He also promised to lower the cost of living and lower the cost of mortgages. Small and medium family businesses have had to deal with the relentless increases in costs driven by Labor's homegrown inflation, which is driven by an additional $315 billion of Labor government spending. As a result, businesses have had to deal with—or try to deal with—overwhelming increases in electricity for practical purposes, for small and family business owners, who might be those ahead in this legislation, meaning virtually every input cost in their businesses has increased. All of these inputs include the increased cost of electricity to produce or supply them. Historically, Australia's wealth and wellbeing have been built on cheap, reliable, 24/7 electricity. It's the most fundamental need in households and businesses. I'd add that, as a farmer, quality water is part of that as well. Small and family businesses, even in the manufacturing sector, have had to deal with their interest and mortgage rates increasing 12 times and higher loan repayments. And don't forget that those same small and family business people usually have to mortgage their homes to finance their small business in the first place. Insurance has gone through the roof, that's if these businesses can actually find an insurer in the first place. They are working harder and longer for less and then have to go home and deal with the extra red and green tape Labor is imposing which is strangling their business and costing them a fortune. For instance, the most recent example that the majority of our small and medium family businesses are not necessarily yet aware of is that many of them are looking down the barrel of having to report their scope 3 emissions to their banks, insurers, suppliers and customers, courtesy of the Labor government. So, besides added staff costs and staff shortages, from August 2026, small and medium family businesses will have 700 pages of new complex industrial relations laws to try to understand and apply to their businesses, bringing with them massive challenges in managing their casual workers, the casual workers who often choose to be casual because it suits them best and who are the critical workers in these businesses. So the Future Made in Australia plan works as long as you don't employ casuals or contractors, apparently. Many of these small businesses could now have a union representative sitting in their business for the first time, thanks to the Labor government. Family owned trucking, transport and logistics businesses are firmly in Labor's sights, facing a revamped Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal set of regulations, whether they are livestock transporters or freight and cartage businesses. Their fuel costs have kept rising as well. They're paying more tax. It doesn't matter which small or family business sector you look at, they're all under the pump from this Labor government. Labor's Future Made in Australia plan doesn't include any of the family farming, trucking, shearing or countless local regional community businesses currently seeing their livelihoods compromised and severely damaged by Labor's ban on the live sheep trade. The majority of our surviving small and family business owners are under great pressure. You only have to listen to them to know that. They've often been unable to find workers and have to work extraordinary hours themselves just to keep their businesses afloat. In our regional areas, even if these businesses can find workers, there are no accommodation or rental properties available for them. How can there be when Labor has indiscriminately brought in over a million migrants, who put enormous pressure on housing and the availability of rental properties? No wonder tax office figures show that 46 per cent of small family businesses do not make a profit and three-quarters of self-employed full-time business owners are earning less than the average weekly full-time wage. The Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman data shows that small and family businesses account for only 33 per cent of GDP and 42 per cent of jobs in the private sector, down from a historic 40 per cent of GDP and 54 per cent of private sector jobs. This appears to be a deliberate strategy by Labor—reducing the number of small and medium family owned businesses and, at the same time, increasing the numbers of public servants and public sector workers, workers dependent on government or dependent on taxpayers paying their wages. But, very clearly, the most important agenda for Labor is increasing union membership. No wonder productivity in Australia has declined by nearly 5.8 per cent since Labor came to government. For households and families, their real disposable incomes have fallen eight per cent. Effectively, even if you're being paid more, you are actually able to buy less with it. This Future Made in Australia Bill can now spend $3.98 billion of taxpayer funds in the run-up to the next election—really targeted at forcing out 90 per cent of the power from Australia's electricity system, power that's always on, 24 hours a day and seven days a week. That is our base-load power. It's a process that will cost at least $1.2 trillion by 2030. Only a Labor government could believe that all Australian households, businesses and industries can be majority powered by intermittent energy alone. Minister Bowen has openly said Australia does not need 24/7 base-load power. I'm not sure what planet the minister is on. How on earth can Australia's economy run almost entirely on intermittent energy alone, using assets that have to be replaced repeatedly at an extraordinary and inflationary cost every 25 or 30 years at least and with massive additional battery storage costs per head for businesses and industries individually? We've recently seen virtual wind droughts and gas shortages on the east coast, and coal has had to fill that gap—the baseload. But Labor has a better answer. Minister Bowen's latest idea is that, when the grid is short, those with electric vehicles will have to dash home and connect their car batteries to the grid. Somehow this will magically provide refineries, food manufacturers, households and the energy grid with the power they need. Given the government is determined that Australia will become a green hydrogen superpower, this will mean that at least 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines will be carpeting our parts of regional Australia. For every kilogram of green hydrogen, at least nine litres of water is required. Good luck to our farmers trying to grow the food on that basis! But there is no mention of food manufacturing in the Made in Australia Bill. I note that a comprehensive study by Princeton University estimates that the price tag for Labor's green hydrogen superpower policy will be between $7 trillion and $9 trillion by 2050. But this bill also contains some potentially very serious outcomes for those of us who live in rural and regional Australia. This is by way of the massive numbers of wind turbines and thousands of hectares of solar panels all being imposed on, or to be imposed on, and built in regional and rural parts of Australia. This is directly affecting our local communities, where we live and work, and will continue to do so. However, embedded in this legislation is the opportunity for Labor to literally force the intermittent energy turbines and solar panels on our communities. As we've seen and will see, this will destroy prime farming land. Labor's 82 per cent renewables by 2030 policy means that, in regional areas, in excess of—and these numbers are just mind blowing—22,000 solar panels will have to be installed every day and in excess of 40 wind turbines will have to be built every month to 2030, either offshore or onshore. This is in regional Australia, in our part of Australia. And, as I said, there will be up to 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, often constructed over prime agricultural land. Just consider the enormous amount of land needed, day in and day out, to just host the endless wind and solar factories in our regional communities and areas. It appears, from what I've read in the media, that the ground is being prepared for Labor to do exactly that—to ignore communities and install these intermittent energy resources. Many communities have resisted this Labor imposition, like those in my electorate in the south-west of WA, who are looking down the barrel of nearly 8,000 square kilometres of offshore wind turbines in the pristine, iconic Geographe Bay. What I'm worried about is that this legislation gives the minister and the Labor government the power to totally steamroll, ignore and override our local communities. It is something that I am very, very concerned about. It will give them the power to impose these projects, no matter what the community says or does. That really does concern me. I read one of the provisions that says that Made in Australia support 'does not need to have regard to the community benefit principles'. In concluding, I see that this is in large part Labor's attempt to sell us a pup and to con those of us in regional and rural Australia into thinking that everyone's going to get a prize here, that everyone's going to be better off and that everyone's going to be a winner. But it is specifically designed to force our regional communities—the places where we live, work and retire and the places where our kids grow up—to accept Labor's endless numbers of wind and solar panels and the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines in our beautiful oceans and on our quality farming land. The green hydrogen superpower plan will compromise our irrigation and water access and assets over time. Unfortunately I see this as a con job for regional and rural Australia and its small and medium family businesses. 11:14 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie When I was growing up in the 1960s, my mum and dad were typical of Australians who were really proud of what we made here. They were proud of their Holden car. They were proud of their Hills Hoist—Australian made. They were proud of Victa mowers. We used those and we knew they were made in Australia. At that time, manufacturing peaked at around 25 per cent of Australia's GDP, and up to a third of Australians were employed in manufacturing. What happened in the sixties didn't happen by accident. John Curtin and Ben Chifley, whom I follow in the line of members for Macquarie very proudly, had a vision for what would happen when World War II ended. They wanted national reconstruction. They wanted things like the creation of a car manufacturing industry, and they saw the economic multiplier effect of having these industries. But 60 years on, while we are still very proud of our inventors, they don't often manufacture here. We are really proud of our scientists, but often they have to send their intellectual property offshore. And we are still proud of iconic Aussie brands, but too few of them exist and even fewer are made or even assembled here. But we can once again be proud of our ability not just to dig things up out of the ground, not just to grow things but to add value to them—to make things here or to make them better here. We can be the ones to turn resources that the world needs into the products that are in demand. I'm not talking about putting on rose-coloured glasses and heading back to the sixties—heaven forbid! I'm thinking about where we could be in the 2030s, 2040s or 2050s by grabbing the opportunity that is right here now in front of us. We do that by harnessing private investment, with really prudent public investment a the catalyst for it. Labor wants Australia to be a country where we make things here, because making more things here will grow our economy and create good jobs—good, long-term, sustainable industries with good jobs. I think COVID showed us the need for us to stand on our own two feet and for that to be spread right around this nation. Incredible things can happen by making the most of what we have, making more things here, and making Australia wealthier, more secure and more independent. That's what Future Made in Australia is all about: an economic plan for a better future. It builds on the work that we've already done: with our National Reconstruction Fund, investing in manufacturing across the country; with our half a million fee-free TAFE places, building skills in our workforce; with our investments in things like universities, science and cybercapability, to name a few; and with our comprehensive road map for cleaner, cheaper energy. In Australia we have a unique combination of circumstances. I've heard the Treasurer describe it as the geology, geography, meteorology and geopolitical advantage. All of these things can position us ahead of just about every other country in the world in thinking to the future if we seize those opportunities in this clean energy transition. What that really means is that unique combination of resources, of people and skills, of space and sunlight and wind can grow our economy, meaning good jobs, cheaper power and sustainable industries. I stress that we do this not as our sole purpose—because we are very focused on the immediate, on the things people are feeling day-to-day, like the cost-of-living pressures they are feeling. We do this at the same time. This is not a 'one or the other' situation. We are capable of asking: what is really pressing, for homes, residents and small businesses? What are the things that are pressuring them now? It's about not ignoring those and pretending they don't happen but tackling them to the very best of our ability. At the same time, we need to think about the future challenges so that we are actually putting Australia in a much better position for the coming decades. I think about doing this not just for my generation but for my kids' generation and for their kids' generation. That is what Labor is always thinking about: not just today—although today matters a lot—but also the future. With this legislation, there are three parts to it, and I think it's worth understanding those three parts. One is the International Interest Framework. This will help us identify the sectors where Australia has a really clear and sustained advantage in a net zero economy or where we need to increase economic security or resilience. That is something I really want to stress—that this is actually about better aligning our national security with our economic security. The pandemic threw that into the spotlight. It threw into the spotlight the fragmentation of supply chains and our susceptibility as a smaller nation at the end of a supply chain, in often not being able to get the things we need when we need them. We want to turn that around, like so many other countries—the UK, Korea, Japan, Canada and the US. We are taking steps to safeguard ourselves, just as they are taking steps to safeguard themselves, against the next global shock. This is about derisking our economy and our society, whether we're thinking about a conflict, a pandemic, a cyberattack or another global energy crisis. That is the purpose of the National Interest Framework, the first pillar, if you will. The second is a robust process to assess sectors to make sure we understand what the barriers to private investment might be and look at how we can actually break down those barriers. This is not about government replacing private investment. This is not about public money replacing private investment. It's about it being a catalyst for private investment. The third pillar is a set of community benefit principles that make sure that the expenditure of public funds and the private investment that it generates lead not just to stronger returns but also to stronger communities. The ultimate aim is to have a more diversified and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy. We are already operating on the principles articulated in this legislation. In our last budget, we focused on a future made in Australia with investment, in refining and processing critical minerals, producing renewable hydrogen, exploring the production of green metals and low-carbon liquid fuels and not only supporting the manufacturing of clean energy technologies such as solar but also making sure we value-add in the battery supply chain. These are all things that meet that criteria. Our $22 billion budget investment shows our commitment to this agenda, but it will need to be heavily supplemented by private investment. We look forward to working with the private sector. I had experience in working with the private sector—I had 25 years in business, much of it working with investment banks and large corporates—and 15 years ago they were saying: 'Just give us certainty. Give us the certainty we need to be able to make these investments.' They are wanting to invest, but the climate wars that those opposite have led means there has been absolute uncertainty for investors. As I said, I really look forward to being able to harness the private capital that is waiting for a government like ours and to put these things into legislation. I mentioned earlier that we are doing this in tandem with tackling the cost of living. I just want to go back to that because I know what the allegations made by those opposite were. We are looking at a whole raft of cost-of-living things, but they're not just little tweaks. Let's look at the role wages play in helping people deal with the increases in the cost of living that have happened. I stood on the other side of this chamber back in 2019 and talked about the pressures that families and small businesses were under with the rising cost of living. Those opposite pooh-poohed the idea and said it wasn't a thing and wasn't going to happen. Well, the data shows it was happening. It was happening under their watch, and they ignored it. We are not ignoring it. We are actively doing what we can to boost wages at the same time as we are delivering tax cuts so that we're making sure people are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. We're also making sure people benefit from relief on their energy bills. It's a small bit of relief that goes across every household. There's not just one group that benefits; it's going through every household and every small business. We're making sure people are getting the benefits of cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and the fee-free TAFE that I've mentioned. Does everybody benefit from every one of those things? No. But we're looking at where we as a government can target the support. It might not be me who gets the biggest benefit. It might be my kids. It might be their friends. It might be our neighbours down the road. So these are the ways that we as a government are looking at delivering relief but also economic security for people here and now, but at the same time we recognise that the future matters too. Our approach follows not just the vision of Chifley and Curtin, which I talked about earlier, but also what I saw when I was a journalist reporting on the Hawke and Keating government: deliberate decisions to deal with the now but also to think about the future and not be passive bystanders as great changes in global economies occurred—not to be a cork bobbing on the waves and waiting to see where they would take us but to be taking charge of where Australia heads, to recognise the opportunity and to act on it. It is very disappointing that those opposite either fail to even see that there's an opportunity or, if they see it, deliberately pretend that there isn't one. They actively choose to not take part in helping Australia determine its own future. What's the evidence that I use to support that? Let's not just use rhetoric; let's look at the proof points. For a start, they voted against the National Reconstruction Fund, a fund to boost our local manufacturing. They voted against anyone receiving energy relief. They don't want families to feel relief; they want families to continue to feel even greater pain. They say that fee-free TAFE was a waste of money. When I talk to childcare workers about fee-free TAFE, as I did last week, I know the benefits that those individuals are getting. Not only are they getting a benefit but our childcare sector is getting a benefit, and I have to tell you that means an economic benefit for every Australian, not just the families who will directly benefit and who value those early educators and the work that they will do. Those opposite also attack the CSIRO. How you can attack people who are actually looking to the future and looking to harness new ideas, new thinking and the resources that we have I don't know. They called Australian manufacturing a graveyard. Well, that's how they see it—the ones who made sure we had no car industry in Australia thanks to their decisions. These are the proof points that tell you that what those opposite are saying is not about Australia having a brighter future; it's about standing still or going backwards. I don't even know whether what they're doing would allow us to tread water. I reckon we'd be drowning pretty fast. I'm very proud to be standing and supporting this bill. I challenge those opposite to take their heads out of the sand, look at the world we live in, look at the potential Australia has, and say to every Australian: 'You know what? We believe in you. We believe Australians can really rise to these challenges if they get support from government. Even better, what if they have the support of this whole parliament?' I'm very pleased to see us leading this charge, and I urge them to catch up. 11:29 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Madam Deputy Speaker, it will come as no surprise to you or those opposite or, indeed, those in the gallery that the coalition will oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. At the heart of that opposition is something that I want to pick up from the contribution of the last government speaker. Those opposite want to paint a picture that, without financial support from government, manufacturing is dead in this country, and I've got to tell you nothing is further from the truth. Those opposite think it is for government to decide which manufacturing businesses should succeed. Those of us on this side of the House think that is a decision best made in a competitive context by businesses themselves. Those opposite want to pick winners; those on this side want to create an economic environment where winners can self-identify and succeed. This bill isn't a bill for greater business investment. Let's be clear: it's a bill about more and bigger government. Now, it's not a bill about slightly bigger government or modestly bigger government; it's a bill about gargantuanly bigger government, particularly with tentacles into the business sector. And it's a $22.7 billion commitment. If you say that quickly, it doesn't sound like a lot of money. But perhaps I can break it down. That's $22,700 million—in this bill alone. So, those opposite are asking of the coalition, of the parliament and, by deference, of the Australian people that they trust the Prime Minister with $22,700 million of taxpayer funds which he will distribute in the best interests of industry. This is a Prime Minister who couldn't facilitate a $275 reduction in energy bills. Now, to be honest, I thought deeply about this, and I thought, I don't know who I trust least with a dollar of my money, let alone $22,700 million of Australian taxpayer money—the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry and Science or the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. But the reality is that that's the mix of office holders in this place who'll be given the great privilege of distributing these funds. Those opposite want to talk down manufacturing. I'm here to tell you that I am an advocate for talking it up. Barker, my electorate, has more full-time-equivalent employees who are engaged in manufacturing than any other division in this place. We're proud to carry that title. And it's principally in food manufacturing, a great strength of this country—weaponised, I'd argue, by the world-leading free trade agreements that the now opposition, when in government, was able to negotiate and install. Over the course of those nine or so years in government we saw an exponential growth in those sectors, and why shouldn't we? Australia enjoys incredible competitive advantages in this space: our clean-and-green image as well as the strength of our farming sector and, increasingly, our food manufacturing. So why wouldn't we be leaning into this space? What those manufacturers need—those manufacturers that are operating today, not those that may be operating in the future—is affordable and reliable energy. They need flexible workplaces. They would love to see less regulation and red tape and of course an incentivised tax system. That's what this $22.7 billion, if it were available, should be invested in: creating a more competitive environment for all businesses to thrive, not just those that can be hand-picked in some sort of Labor bingo game. But that's not what's happening in this country right now—not at all. What's happening in this country right now is that industrial relations changes are making it harder for manufacturers. Labor's energy policy is making it harder for manufacturers to do business. As a result, productivity is down and insolvencies are up. That's the reality. Those opposite, as if to have had an epiphany post the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, come into this place on a relatively regular basis—I'd argue almost daily—and plead with the Australian people to believe them when they say they have always had cost-of-living pressures that Australians experience first and foremost in their considerations since they've come to government. Of course, that's not the truth, because those opposite spent half a billion dollars on a vanity project taking this nation to an unnecessary and ultimately unsuccessful referendum around the Voice. All the while, as that debate raged, as Australians went to the ballot box, Australians were hurting. Over the period since Labor came to power, prices are up 10 per cent for working households, personal income tax is up by 20 per cent, real wages for employees have collapsed by nine the per cent, living standards have commensurately collapsed by eight per cent, household savings are down—and here's the kicker: a family with a typical mortgage is around $35,000 worse off. Against that background and against the background of the Reserve Bank of Australia warning those opposite that we need to ensure monetary and fiscal policy is in lockstep, what do we see from those opposite? We see a gargantuan commitment to $22.7 billion. Those opposite want to argue this won't be inflationary. Well, of course it will be. I mentioned earlier picking winners, and of course we can argue about the philosophy of command-and-control economics, but I want to remind those opposite that, not that long ago, the Prime Minister, the member for Hunter, the minister for climate change and the minister for science and industry went and celebrated an investment in a business that was proposing to manufacture photovoltaic-cell solar panels. And what did we hear not a week ago? Of course that business has made the decision to reduce its workforce by 35 people. Now, the members opposite say industry needs the support of government. Absolutely it does. But it needs the support of government to reduce the cost and regulatory burdens that it experiences. There is a need for greater flexibility across the board, not for hand-picked specialists or specialist businesses that might just tickle an ideological want of this government and those opposite. But don't take my word for it. Let's investigate what others have been saying. My favourite contribution in this space from others is from Steven Hamilton, the independent economist: I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back. Well, some of us, I'd argue, have learnt these lessons, but the current administration has not. There are many problems with industry policy, and this proposed bill is a big one. Danielle Wood, the Chair of the Productivity Commission hand-picked by those opposite, said: We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more. She went on to paint a beautiful, very clear word picture when she said: Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap. I expect my parents went through that period when I was a very hungry teenager. The former Chairman of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, described the Future Made in Australia Bill as a 'fool's errand'. It's certainly an errand. I accept his assessment. It just had me wondering who the fool might be. So that's the contribution of others. And, quite appropriately, those opposite are fair—and the commentariat otherwise are fair—to ask, 'Well, what would you do? What would the coalition do?' because, ultimately, we're presenting ourselves as the alternative government. We will take a back-to-basics approach. Firstly, we will do everything we can to rein in inflationary spending. We're not just saying this now. We have not just been saying it since the Voice referendum. The shadow Treasurer has been saying this from day one. In fact, before the now shadow Treasurer was installed by the now Leader of the Opposition to that office he was making that case. Secondly, we will wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, because that is what business is asking us to do as we meet with business. Thirdly, we will remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on business. As I meet with employers and employees of those businesses, they remind me time and again of how much they value flexibility in the employment relationship. My father has operated farming businesses for much of his life, and my mother a retail business for over 45 years, until she retired. Some of her employees had been with her from day one. Those employees were more family than they were staff, and the idea that my mother's business relationship with her employees needed to be protected in some way by government legislation is offensive to her, but that's the nature of things. There is, in terms of the industrial relations space in this place, all of a sudden an us-and-them attitude when, in truth, in most successful businesses—in, I'd argue, all successful businesses—there's an us-and-us approach to industrial relations. Equally, I met with hospitality employees recently who told me beseechingly that they didn't want to transition away from casual employment, because they enjoyed and, indeed, needed the leave loading. Those opposite need to understand this: people make decisions that meet their life's circumstances. But I'm off track. The fourth thing we will do is provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all, which will mean that Australians can genuinely keep more of what they earn for themselves. Fifthly, we will deliver competition policy that gives consumers and small businesses a fair go—and that includes the farmers in my electorate, who are very much celebrating that and hoping for that prospect. Sixthly, we will ensure Australians have more affordable and more reliable energy. As a member in this place from South Australia, can I tell you that we have lived, and are living, the all-in renewables experiment. Whether it was the blackout or the highest energy costs in the country, I'm telling you, the experiment is failing. And those opposite want to extend that experiment to the whole of the nation. This is a bad bill. It's a rotten bill. We oppose it, and those opposite should think again, in the interests of all Australians. 11:44 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga A Future Made in Australia is just that. It's a positive vision for the future of this country that will ensure that we make more things here, diversify what we produce and represent a major step forward in making the Australian economy more prosperous and more resilient. This is our government seizing the opportunities that come as part of the global economy and the transition to net zero, a future powered by renewable energy as we make Australia a renewable energy superpower, and facilitating the private sector investment that is required to make Australia a critical part of the global net zero economy. At the heart of this is our government's determination to set Australians up for a better future. This is the work we are doing every day. That's why a Future Made in Australia is so critical. It ensures that Australia is taking up the opportunities we have to drive the clean economy opportunities, the jobs of the future, as we also tackle the climate crisis that is in front of us. Our government understands how important it is that Australia make the most of the opportunities that are there in this transition, that we make Australia a global leader in renewable energy, and that we take the jobs and the opportunities, the manufacturing and the industries, that are there for us to build and to support. Our government understands this. We understand this work is critical for now and into the future. But, of course, those opposite just want to say no to this work. The Liberals and the Nationals do not want to build a secure and prosperous future for this country. They have no interest, it seems, in a secure and prosperous economy into the future. They fall back on their negativity and their denial. We saw that in the decade of denial and drift when they were in power. It is not surprising that Australians only need to look across the other side and see the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, who continue to enable the climate denialists in their ranks to call the shots and set a path for Australia that fails to seize the opportunities that are there in front of us. They're failing to take the action we need to tackle the climate crisis, build a stronger and more resilient country, and set us all up for a better future. The Future Made in Australia legislation includes a range of principles to ensure that our investments are promoting safe, secure, well-paid jobs with good conditions and developing a skilled, inclusive workforce. It's taking a collaborative approach to engaging local communities, including all those communities that will be crucial to our transition to net zero. Those are communities right across our country, in regional areas and metro areas, like mine. It's strengthening Australia's domestic industrial capabilities and our local supply chains. It's demonstrating transparency and compliance with Australia's tax system. This legislation brings us closer to our vision for a prosperous future for all Australians, helping us secure our country's place in the shifting global economic and strategic landscape. We see it across the world. We see it in the United States, where the drive to invest in renewables has been huge. There are opportunities for our country in this. We do not have to let it be that other countries benefit from this transition and that we miss out, as has happened in the past. This is our opportunity to benefit from this massive global transition. We as a country have been delivered an incredible set of cards that will make us the beneficiary of this global net zero transition if we do the work right and take up the opportunity, which is what this government is doing. What we see from those opposite is negativity, saying 'no' again. What they're really saying to Australians and the communities who want to see this action, who want to see us build a stronger and cleaner future, is that they don't care about your future. They are saying that they are not interested in the clean, green jobs of the future. The coalition does not want to see our country and our communities put in the best possible position to embrace the opportunities that will come from Australia being a renewable energy superpower. It seems they do not want to make more things here in Australia. They don't want to help make Australia's economy more resilient and secure now and into the future. Those opposite seem to be more focused on prosecuting their niche clauses and climate denialism. And, of course, we have those opposite continuing to push a nuclear frolic, which is the most expensive of all the options in front of our country in terms of the transition to net zero, with technology that so far is unproven and with no social licence for that work. This is the new curtain, I guess, that you put up around your climate denialism so that nobody realises it's still just climate denialism. It is not a positive plan for the future of this country. It is not going to secure us the industries, jobs and manufacturing of the future. Once again, those opposite demonstrate a complete lack of interest in doing the work that you would expect of an opposition that is saying to the Australian people, 'We are ready to govern and doing the work to set our country up for the future.' This bill will unlock private investment in future industries and bring new jobs and opportunities to communities across the country. It's about maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the global transformation to net zero and securing Australia's place in the changing global, economic and strategic landscape. It will help us build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy, one powered by renewable energy. It will help us to create more secure, well-paid jobs. It will encourage and facilitate the private sector investment that makes Australia an indispensable part of the global net zero economy. It recognises that our future growth lies at the intersection of our industrial skills and energy bases and it positions us as an investment destination as this work happens across the globe. As I said, it absolutely builds on the natural advantages we have in renewable energy alongside those traditional strengths we have in areas like resources, manufacturing and building new opportunities, including green metals, clean energy technologies and low-carbon liquid fuels. The bill imposes rigour on government decision-making and it helps give investors the certainty they need to invest and unlock the growth that is possible in our economy. As I've said, this transition is happening around the world, even while those opposite would like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's not. This bill allows our country to seize the opportunities for that transition. We see at the moment that supply chains across the world are under pressure, with increasing fragmentation and global competition. So the new opportunities emerging in clean energy industries are what will shape our economy and the global economy over the next decade and beyond. We are ideally placed to benefit from these global transitions underway due to our comparative advantages, our capabilities and our trade partnerships. We know that the private sector is responding to these opportunities, but there is absolutely also a role for government in creating a positive framework and environment for these investments as the momentum builds towards a net zero economy. We want to ensure that public investment and the private investment it attracts flows to communities in ways that benefit local workers and businesses. This transition will only work if we bring people with us. That is the opportunity, again, for jobs and industries right around the country in regions and in communities like mine where we do develop more skilled and inclusive workforces. Of course, we've been putting the resources into fee-free TAFE to make sure that we are building the skilled workforce of the future that we need to support this. We're working with diverse communities to make sure that what happens in this transition benefits not just not just our big manufacturers, big companies and our broader economy but every Australian. We know that Australian business is getting on with this transition already. Certainly in my electorate of Jagajaga, I have been very pleased to engage with Leeson, a really innovative local solar company driving new ways of working and investment in solar innovation and industries locally in Heidelberg West and beyond. This is our government supporting that sort of work. Supporting that innovation will mean that the jobs and investments of the future are there for all of us. We know that those opposite have a track record of failing to support Australian manufacturing. We saw that track record when they told the car industry that they could just pack up and go. Guess what? They packed up and left. I have seen the impact of that in my own community in Heidelberg West, where the manufacturing hub that was there, connected to that industry, has really fallen apart from what it was. We see what happens when governments, like those opposite, make decisions that are not in the interest of Australian manufacturing and Australian jobs. That's what happened when they made those decisions about our car industry and told it to leave. We know what the consequences of those opposite's nuclear frolic will be: climate denialism, a lack of action for a boondoggle, or a mirage of some possible future hugely expensive solution. That seems to be what those opposite are focused on at the moment rather than the positive future that this bill sets up. I know that people in my community are passionate about making sure that our country is doing all it can to tackle the climate crisis. This bill is about us seizing the economic opportunities that have come alongside doing the work to tackle the climate crisis, setting our country up to be a superpower when it comes to renewable energy, to take the opportunities that are there, and to build the jobs and industries of the future. I commend the bill to the House. 11:55 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak against the Albanese government's Future Made in Australia Bill and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No 1) Bill 2024. You have to give it to those opposite and their strategists—they really do come up with some very meaningful sounding titles for their legislation. Think of it, in just the last few months we've had the 'cost-of-living tax cuts', the 'nature positive' bills, the 'help to buy' housing package. And here we have another clever slogan with Future Made in Australia. How could anyone possibly be opposed to such proposed laws that sound so wonderful and so positive, like they're really trying to solve a problem? Well, unfortunately, again and again, the substance and the results of Labor's legislation fails to live up to the promise of these titles. Those opposite are consistent, if nothing else. Times are tough right now, and I don't get any pleasure in saying that Australians are struggling more than ever before. Since Labor came to office just over two years ago, personal income taxes are up by 20 per cent, real wages have collapsed by nine per cent, living standards have fallen by eight per cent, household savings are down by 10 per cent, and families with a typical mortgage of $750,000 are roughly $35,000 worse off. Businesses aren't immune to higher inflation, either. They also have to manage higher rents, higher mortgage repayments, higher energy bills, higher prices for goods and, of course, the consequences of their customers having less buying power. It's no surprise that last financial year was the worst year on record for business insolvency, with some 10,757 businesses becoming insolvent. Our country is in an entrenched GDP-per-capita recession, and the only reason Australia's GDP is growing—barely growing, I might add, with just 0.1 per cent growth in the last quarter—is because under Labor we've seen the highest net migration in our nation's history. Obviously, this record migration is causing problems of its own. It's shrinking housing vacancies and driving up rents and housing costs when Australians can least afford it. Australians expect their government to act on these issues, and why shouldn't they? Who can forget the central promise of the 2022 election campaign, that life would be better and cheaper under a Labor government led by Prime Minister Albanese? A solemn promise from the 'my word is my bond' prime minister. While Labor's policies might sound good at first glance, they are clearly failing to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. They are not bringing down inflation, nor are they laying the groundwork for the Reserve Bank to start cutting interest rates. I must say, it's unfortunate that Australia is an outlier when it comes to fighting inflation, with our core inflation sitting at 3.9 per cent. We are the only G10 nation where core inflation has gone up compared to December figures. There's a reason we're at the back of the pack, and it's because of our prime minister's failed policies and misplaced priorities. I'm talking about the $315 billion in extra spending. I'm talking about the plan to remove 90 per cent of our 24/7 baseload power. I'm talking about our Prime Minister's focus on ideological pet projects instead of getting back to basics, which is what Australia wants and deserves. Unfortunately, with the introduction of this legislation, the government is doubling down on those policy failures. With these bills, the government is expanding the role of Export Finance Australia and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to intervene in the market by funding and propping up domestic industries and manufacturing. With this proposed legislation, Labor are again saying that Australia can become a renewable energy superpower and that they will subsidise the development of domestic solar panel and battery manufacturing. Productivity Commissioner Danielle Wood, the government's key economic adviser, 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. So this bill doesn't just mean billions of dollars in more government spending today; it potentially bakes in billions of dollars for decades to come to continue to sustain industries that simply aren't commercially viable—billions that this parliament will have no say over and that will not undergo appropriate analysis. So much for the promises of transparency that the Australian people got just over two years ago! Remember that? You only have to look at the government's $1 billion investment in solar manufacturing through the Solar Sunshot program to be concerned with the approach those opposite are taking. We know that the Treasury department were not consulted prior to this investment decision. That's a real shame, because Treasury's subsequent analysis has said that it is not a sound investment. Similarly, the $1 billion investment in American company PsiQuantum appears equally questionable, given that a non-binding agreement with the company was entered into two months prior to the expression-of-interest process. Again, it appears that $1 billion of taxpayer money has been rolled out independent of department appraisal, analysis or recommendation. The bills before us do not make the process for investment any less opaque. While I disagree with the government's approach and will be opposing the bills, I am glad that we are talking about the importance and the future of manufacturing in this country. Over 900,000 Australians are employed in manufacturing, and I would love to see that number grow. However, the reality is that Australia has several fundamental factors that make us uncompetitive compared to foreign markets: our corporate tax rate is much higher than the OECD average; our energy costs are on the rise; our industrial relations system is far too complicated and costly; we have far too much red and green tape, making it difficult to do business in this country; and our isolation from foreign markets means transportation costs also must be considered. Obviously, we can't control that last point I mentioned, but business leaders have an idea of where we can start. The President of the Business Council of Australia has said: Our competitors (think Canada, the US, and across Asia) are more investment-friendly environments based on old-fashioned fundamentals like tax and regulation. To reinvent our economy we must, as a point of national urgency, become a more competitive place to do business. That's what the coalition will do: focus on the fundamentals, not slogans and ideological fairytales. On energy, we haven't been deterred by the fearmongering and childish memes of those opposite, and we have announced we plan to incorporate zero-emissions nuclear power into Australia's energy grid. This is a long-term plan to deliver safe, affordable and reliable energy whilst reaching net zero by 2050, which the coalition is committed to. To achieve this target we can't simply rely upon renewables. That is a fantasy that even foreign left-wing governments can't comprehend. Let me remind the House that out of the 20 largest economies in the world, Australia is the only one without nuclear or without plans to move towards it. Moving from a mix of renewables, gas and coal to renewables, gas and nuclear will ensure our grid works 24/7 and is not reliant upon weather patterns. Let's not forget that manufacturing, which the legislation before us is supposedly meant to assist, is incredibly energy intensive. How can they have confidence with reliable 24/7 baseload power under this current government? We've also committed to rolling back the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda threatening Australia's small, medium and large businesses. We all know that the process was about rewarding Labor's paymasters in the union movements, including unions like the CFMEU. In terms of red and green tape, we will prioritise condensing approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing mining jobs and entrepreneurialism. Of course those opposite have no plan to act on the fundamentals I just mentioned and will make the economic environment even worse with their commitment to failing energy, industrial relations and economic policies. I'll also take this opportunity to reassert my commitment to the people of Western Australia. It has been a highlight of my parliamentary career to have fought and won policy battles on behalf of my state. While we have the Prime Minister preorganising photo opportunities surrounding our GST agreement, let's not forget who actually delivered that—it was the federal WA Liberal team together with Prime Minister Morrison. Without that agreement, WA would currently be receiving around 12 cents back for every dollar that we contribute. Given this history, I won't be lectured to by those opposite about how to stand up for Western Australia. Indeed, one of the most laughable things I've heard from those opposite is that with this legislation they're all of a sudden champions for WA's mining and resources sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. As my electorate of Durack is home to much of Western Australia's resources sector, I meet with representatives from the sector regularly. Let me tell you that when I meet with those many many representatives, they certainly don't give the government a glowing reference. These claims are being made at the same time as we see the mining industry in the Pilbara and BHP currently combating clumsy union power grabs made possible by this government's disastrous and reckless industrial relations reform. Chris Rodwell, Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia has said: The last thing WA and our nation needs is industrial chaos on our mining sites, allowing unions to effectively hold our economy to ransom. Labor's grand plans and claims are also being made while the Minister for the Environment and Water is considering the inclusion of a climate trigger as part of her Nature Positive plan. According to new research by the Institute of Public Affairs, a climate trigger would put more than $220 billion worth of investment at risk. Of that $220 billion, $112 billion would be in my home state of Western Australia. This is on top of adding further green tape through the duplication of environmental approval processes that already exist at state and territory levels. Do those opposite realise that this will hold up new critical minerals and hydrogen projects, which apparently they support as part of their renewables revolution? To the Minister for Resources, who during her contribution to the debate challenged me to take a position on this legislation and who consistently talks up government support for the mining industry, can the minister confirm how she feels about more red tape? I'd also like to hear if the minister supports WA's ban on uranium mining. Earlier this year at COP 28 there was a major push to triple global nuclear power by 2050. Australia is home to a third of the world's uranium reserves, most of which are in Western Australia. The obvious question is: why don't we get mining and help the world to get to net zero, grow the economy and create more good paying jobs in the meantime? It's also worth noting that this government's supposed support in this bill for the resources sector doesn't apply to things like gas, uranium, blue hydrogen or carbon capture and storage. Explain that. While Labor talk a big game on critical minerals, the help they are proposing with this legislation only comes into play when those companies begin to turn a profit. Well, that's little good to companies like Nickel West, who are currently going underwater right now, or to the junior miners who are struggling to get projects off the ground. Western Australians are not mugs. They understand that Labor will always be more interested in appeasing inner-city voters on the east coast—they know that—rather than securing well-paying jobs in our regions. They also understand that structural reform is required to support all businesses' growth, not just sections of the economy that Labor ideologically obsess over or make snap decisions to get behind. Australia is at a crossroads. We all want a future made in Australia, but this rubbish legislation is certainly not the way that it's going to happen. I do not support this legislation. 12:10 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The Treasurer announced during the 2024-25 budget our $22.7 billion plan to make us an indispensable part of the global economy with a future made right here in Australia. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 will deliver on key elements of the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia plan to return manufacturing onshore and bring Australian know-how back to the table. We have not wasted any time on this side of the House. We are crafting programs and reforms to diversify our economy and build our sovereign capability, which, sadly, has been neglected for too long. We are investing in our workers and skilling the future workforce with a $10 million energy future skills centre at the University of Wollongong and a $2.5 million renewable energy training centre at Wollongong TAFE, and who could forget the half a million fee-free TAFE places across this country? We are supporting our homegrown industries to create a pipeline of well-paid and secure jobs, not just now but also into the future. It is an absolute priority for our government to support businesses to invest, to grow and to embed innovation instead of moving offshore. These two bills represent significant advancements to reshape our national economy by strengthening local industry and reducing reliance on international supply chains. This is vital for regions and regions like the Illawarra. It will help Australia to attract investment into key industries to make our country a renewable energy superpower. We must ensure that Australia can navigate global challenges while developing domestic innovation, sustainability and economic resilience. Whilst the Illawarra is well known as a steel city, we are now revolutionising the world of clean energy technology too. One company that I have spoken about a lot in this parliament is Hysata in Port Kembla. Hysata is on the brink of manufacturing the world's most effective hydrogen electrolysers, with their technology currently 21 per cent more efficient than anything else on the market, and that is Illawarra's innovation at its finest. Hysata is a truly homegrown story, starting their journey at the University of Wollongong's Australian Institute for Innovative Materials and then beginning their breakthrough with the university's business incubator at iAccelerate. Earlier this year, they celebrated the southern hemisphere's largest-ever series B capital raise of $172 million, and the Albanese Labor government was very proud to support this venture with a $15 million investment through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The world's hard-to-abate sectors are chomping at the bit, waiting for their expansion of manufacturing at their Port Kembla facility to reach gigawatt-scale production of its electrolyser to tackle mass decarbonisation. But startups like these can't keep up the heavy lifting on their own. Paul Barrett, Hysata's CEO, summed it up perfectly this morning. He said: Hysata has performed astoundingly in attracting private capital, but for companies like us to thrive and be globally competitive, we're going to need access to incentives like those provided overseas. These incentives are what the Future Made in Australia Bill stands to offer, and why Hysata has openly endorsed it in our recent submission. The fact is that the new 'no-alition' between the Liberal Party and the Australian Greens political party is actually discouraging Australian manufacturing and trying to push them out the door and out of the country. That is unbelievable. On this side of the House, we proudly have faith in Australian ideas, Australian know-how, Australian workers, Australian scientists and Australian businesses. Our businesses are crying out for the support, and Paul couldn't have been clearer in his remarks this morning. He said: Through Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Hysata has been a recipient of Government support along our journey. The international confidence in our technology is in part to their contribution. But for that confidence to lead to building a company that offers Australians a future, we need policy that acknowledges and supports the strengths of local industry and innovation. We have seen support for industries like Hysata's span several Governments, and it's time to have decisive action to get these critical policies passed. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it's clear that the biggest threat to Australian jobs and investment is not international uncertainty or changes in the global economy; it's those sitting opposite. They voted against the National Reconstruction Fund, against more social housing and against energy bill relief—unbelievable. Our Future Made in Australia plan will help Australia build a stronger, more diverse and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy. It will create secure, well-paid jobs and encourage the private sector investment that is needed to make Australia a key player in the global net zero economy. This bill has three components. The first one embeds the government's National Interest Framework, which was announced during the budget, to help identify sectors where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage in the net zero economy or an economic security imperative. The second one establishes a robust sector assessment process to understand and remove barriers to private investment. It also establishes a set of community benefit principles that will make sure relevant Future Made in Australia investments create strong returns for local communities, workers and business. The National Investment Framework identifies two primary streams for intervention. There is the net zero transformation stream, which targets industries essential for achieving Australia's climate goals, as well as the economic resilience and security stream, which focuses on sectors critical to national security and economic stability. Priority industries under these streams includes renewable hydrogen, critical minerals processing and clean energy technologies. Our plan will play a key role in making more things in Australia. It will drive economic development in our regions and outer suburbs, like the Illawarra. This plan will go a long way in supporting manufacturers like Gravitas Technologies, in my electorate, who are producing two groundbreaking materials, georock and vulloy. Georock is arguably the world's most advanced and safest treatment of nuclear waste. It is already being commissioned by the UK and USA governments. The second product, vulloy, is a metallic ceramic product that has a significant weight-saving advantage for flight applications and can withstand ultrahigh temperatures, up to 2,000 degrees Celsius. There are currently no comparable global competitors for this technology, and the Wollongong company are currently supporting projects across a wide range of sectors, including defence, aerospace and industrial markets. All of this has been developed in Wollongong over the past 10 years by a young and relatively small team, including a majority of University of Wollongong graduates, which is great to see when I'm walking around the factory floor. These companies collectively highlight the Illawarra region's pivotal role in driving Australian manufacturing towards a sustainable and innovative future, reinforcing its importance to the national economy and the global competitiveness of our Australian industries. We want to ensure public investment and the private investment it attracts flow to communities in ways that benefit local workers and businesses, like in my region of the Illawarra. That is why a set of community benefit principles will be applied to Future Made in Australia supports that have been identified in this bill. The Albanese Labor government's goal is to ensure that these investments promote safe, secure and well-paid jobs with good working conditions. We are committed to developing a more skilled and inclusive workforce by investing in training and skills development while broadening opportunities for workforce participation. This approach not only benefits employees but also strengthens the overall economy by creating a more capable and adaptable workforce. We also want these public and private investments to be able to work in collaboration with local communities, including First Nations communities and those directly impacted by the transition to a net zero economy. By focusing on achieving positive outcomes for these communities, we ensure that the benefits of these investments are widespread and inclusive, fostering stronger social cohesion and supporting regional development. The government is dedicated to strengthening domestic industrial capabilities by reinforcing local supply chains. We want to ensure transparency and compliance in managing tax affairs, including the benefits received under the Future Made in Australia supports. This is essential in maintaining public trust and ensuring that these investments contribute meaningfully to the broader economy. Since we've come to government we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables, record investment in batteries and storage, and over 330,000 rooftop solar installations in just the last year alone. We live in a country that is rich with boundless opportunities for renewable energy, and we are harnessing them for a Future Made in Australia. 12:21 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman The Future Made in Australia bills have lovely-sounding names, and I think all members of this chamber would be interested in a future made in Australia. But the more you read the actual detail of these bills, the more you realise that what's being proposed doesn't stack up. The coalition fears that this is a plan for pork-barrelling, not for a strong economy, and members on this side will be opposing these bills. 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 Export Finance Australia's remit to 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 demonstration to support manufacturing deployment and commercialisation. In essence, this is very much a plan for more government, not more business investment. It's a plan that, unfortunately, will drive forward further inflation, at a time when Australian households can least afford it. Australian families are already paying the price, having endured 12 interest rate hikes under this government, and unfortunately we're facing some of the most stubborn core inflation in the developed world, and of course we are going to see the economic impacts of that for quite a while to come. Australian families shouldn't be paying for Labor's re-election strategy, which they would be doing if this bill were to pass. Governments can't solve the cost-of-living crisis by throwing hard-earned taxpayers money around in such a manner. The Prime Minister might want to pick winners, but Australian families will certainly be the losers if this process continues as envisaged. When I speak to the manufacturers who are operating within my electorate, they say they don't want governments to be picking winners within the industry. They simply want government to get the basics right. I think that's the fundamental difference between the approaches on either side of the chamber. The government is keen to intervene in the market to pick the winners, to spend the money, whereas the coalition members, the members on this side, want to ensure that the basics are right, that the market is able to pick its own winners for the people who are delivering the manufacturing outcomes that we want, the manufacturing jobs of the future—that they come up naturally, organically, through the right settings that are in place by the government. The manufacturers in my electorate simply want affordable and reliable energy. They want flexible workplaces. They want less regulation. And of course they'd love an incentive based tax system. I think that's the fundamental difference. Do we want to be interventionist and trying to pick winners? Or do we want to just be focusing on getting those basics right? Certainly the manufacturers in my electorate are telling me that's the role that they see for government. They see government as there to facilitate their growth, not to take a heavy hand in investing within the market. The sad reality is that Labor's policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are making Australia a less attractive place to do business. That's certainly the feedback that I've been getting from the manufacturers within my electorate who are looking to grow. The facts are clear: insolvencies are up, productivity is down and businesses are struggling just to keep their doors open. Labor's plan with the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is unfortunately more about spin than about actual delivery. We see economist after economist criticise this policy. I'll touch on some of the comments that they've made shortly. Every day we hear more stories about processes that aren't being followed properly, the lack of economic scrutiny and the double standards that will apply to this program. Let's start by having a look at the ARENA changes that are being proposed through these bills. The legislation fundamentally changes the purpose, duties and roles of ARENA. ARENA has always been a research and development agency. This is clear in its remit, in the explanatory memorandum and in the second reading speech that was given back when these bills were introduced. Labor, in opposition, even opposed expanding the remit to cover sensible net zero related R&D expenditure, including into carbon capture and storage, and blue hydrogen. They are expanding that remit even further into development and manufacturing because it suits the interests of those they wish to please. If ARENA is doing deployment, why is the CEFC even needed in that instance? We're seeing a muddying of the waters between those entities. If these industries aren't commercially viable, why are they receiving government funding in the first place? Labor's changes are, unfortunately, more insidious than just a muddying of waters between the roles of different agencies. At the stroke of a pen this bill gives the Minister for Climate Change the ability to boost funding. It provides no opportunity for this parliament, for the other chamber or for any of our committees to provide the scrutiny that we would expect. We're talking about pretty significant funding and figures that will not face the same level of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny that we would expect. It's just some delegated legislation, and the government can roll up to $3.98 billion out the door in the course of this year, which would be, of course, an election year. Unfortunately, some have described this as a slush fund, and it's hard to argue with that. Let's also have a look at the National Interest Framework. This legislation puts the Treasurer and his department in a position to decide whether a sector of the Australian economy deserves investment. Under this plan, the Treasurer will now be setting the conditions for business to operate and seek funding. His department will consider the investment against a very narrow set of criteria, and they have provided evidence to Senate estimates that key investments for Australia's energy future and sovereign capability—whether they be carbon capture and storage, gas, blue hydrogen, uranium or nuclear—will not be eligible and have not been considered as part of the framework. Meanwhile the so-called 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 conduct to go unchecked and that have left us in the mess that we've been trying to deal with over the last few days in this parliament. This is not the way to build a healthy and productive economy—far from it. The Business Council has warned that these procurement rules are at risk of enabling this sort of behaviour, while it risks subsidising businesses Australia would never have a comparative advantage in. The BCA rightfully points out that this is important because taxpayers' dollars are at stake, and that should, of course, be the primary concern of parliamentarians here. The BCA have also made it clear that this is not the best path forward. The BCA president, Bran Black, has said that 'our competitors—think China, the US and across Asia—are more investment-friendly environments based on old-fashioned fundamentals, like tax and regulation' and that 'to reinvent our economy we must, as a point of national urgency, become a more competitive place to do business'. I think that's pretty fundamental. It should be a fairly uncontroversial thing for the president of the Business Council of Australia to say. Let's have a look at what some of the others are saying about this. Danielle Wood, the chair of the Productivity Commission, who was appointed and hand-selected by this Treasurer, 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 like this quote that Danielle Wood provided: Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap. As someone who's got two rapidly growing small children, I can certainly appreciate that. When asked whether Future Made in Australia contained tax reform, Ms Wood explicitly said it is 'not tax reform'. On alternative policies, including lowering the corporate tax rate, Ms Wood offered it would 'make us more internationally competitive'. Former chair of the Productivity Commission Mr Gary Banks described Future Made in Australia as 'a fool's errand' that risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. He went even further and said: 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. Mr Banks likened the scheme to 'Hotel California', saying many will enter the program but few will ever leave. This morning, my Spotify account informed me that I have a boomer's taste in music, so I particularly enjoyed that reference to the Eagles. If I can build off Mr Banks's reference to the Eagles lyrics, I think the Treasurer's enjoying 'Life in the Fast Lane' and, through his legislation, is clearly trying to 'Take it to the Limit'. I implore him to reconsider this approach with those iconic lyrics of Glenn Frey and Don Henley: 'Desperado, why don't you come to your senses?' I'm hoping I might trigger a response from those opposite in due course. Another eminent economist, Professor Richard Holden, said: The PM says all the wrong things. … And his main argument for subsidies is that other countries are doing it. Like a primary school kid telling a teacher: "but he started it!" We've got a litany of economists and economic commentators who are pointing us in the right direction. They are pointing us back to the fundamentals of economics. It's not just the economists, these people who've spent their lives studying the fundamentals, but also the manufacturers within the communities who we should be talking to. Certainly the manufacturers in my neck of the woods are all echoing these sentiments. Steven Hamilton, an independent economist, 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. He also said: I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back. When comparisons with the US IRA were drawn, Mr Hamilton said: With this scale, it can produce at reasonable cost. [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 as at a distinct disadvantage. No amount of government subsidy is going to get around that. I think that's a critical point. It does reach a point where no amount of government subsidy can keep some of these sectors going in Australia. Let's have a look at how Labor's own investments line up against the standards that they've set for themselves. The Productivity Commission says that a billion-dollar commitment to make more solar panels in Australia under the Prime Minister's Future Made in Australia program should be retrospectively subjected to a tougher National Interest Framework test. It says, 'Allowing sectors to bypass the National Interest Framework process would undermine its role in disciplining spending.' Yet we know that Labor are already breaking their own rules when it suits them. Key elements of Labor's Future Made in Australia agenda, including the PsiQuantum contract, bypass the National Interest Framework and sector assessments. I think the word PsiQuantum is going to be used in this chamber a lot over the coming year. There are serious questions to answer about the decision of the PsiQuantum contract, about the decision to make this investment, and about the processes that were followed. It's increasingly clear that the minister decided to invest in this business independent of any departmental appraisal, analysis or recommendation. Treasury was not consulted prior to the decision to invest in solar manufacturing, and subsequent analysis has said that it is not a sound investment. On the topic of PsiQuantum. I'm looking forward to the opportunity in October—I'm sure the member for Groom will agree—where, hopefully, a change of state government in Queensland may provide opportunity for greater scrutiny about the Queensland government's decision to invest in that program as well. It may lead to a few more questions being asked in this chamber about the appropriateness of that investment and whether it has met the standards that we expect. Australians deserve something better than what is being proposed here, and the coalition wants to deliver that. That's why we are promising to do three things: we will steer our nation out of the current domestic crises; we will not simply talk about the challenges of our time but we will meet them head-on with action to carve out a more secure future; and, most importantly, we will make the decisions that set up our nation for success for generations to come. We need to make sure Australia can play to its strengths, and we're looking to build a nation that is a mining, manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse and a leader in technology and in innovation. We need to rein in inflationary spending, take the pressure off and provide the opportunity for these manufacturers to truly have success over the long term. 12:36 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean The member for Bowman, despite his relative youth, seemed to be stuck in the hazy west-coast 1970s—an attitude that it will be all right in the long run. It's a privilege to contribute to this debate—a debate about one of the most important policy agendas of the Albanese government. This bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, represents the ambitions of this government to set this country up for growth and progress, to build a future here for our children and their children. It's another example of a government that is firmly focused on today and tomorrow, compared to an opposition with a narrow, straitened focus on a past—a past where, I dare say, they were responsible for too many opportunities missed. I know this better than some, as for much of their time in government I worked representing science and engineering professionals across the public and private sectors, and saw firsthand the consequences of their disinterest in manufacturing, research and innovation, and their disinterest in industry and science policy more broadly. I recognise the many excellent contributions which have already been made by my colleagues on this side of the House. The number and quality of contributions reflect the commitment we have to pursuing this plan for the benefit of all Australians. We face a series of challenges on the national horizon, but these challenges come with opportunities if we are bold enough to grasp them, and Australians have always been bold when facing the future. When their governments join them in this boldness, the capacity of the Australian people to achieve greatness is limitless. We had nearly a decade of inaction and atrophy when those opposite occupied this side of the chamber. They did nothing to address the challenges of climate change, manufacturing and securing supply changes. It was a decade of lost opportunity. We on this side are going to catch up and make up for this wasted decade. This bill forms a key part of that catch-up. What is before us today is straightforward. The principle underpinning it is simple. We on this side want Australia to be a country that makes things here. We used to be a country which made things. We made cars here, something that was lost thanks to the wilful destructiveness of those opposite. We have three critical reasons why we need to be, once again, a country which makes things: firstly, making things here will contribute positively to economic growth; secondly, making things here will create jobs—good, well-paying jobs; and thirdly, making things here will make us stronger and more secure by reducing our dependence on potentially vulnerable global supply chains. Underpinning all this is using this as an opportunity to take serious and meaningful action on climate change through promoting investment in renewable energy. As the Treasurer said, this legislation is built on three pillars: first, a National Interest Framework, which will help us identify sectors where we have a sustained comparative advantage in the new net zero economy or in economic resilience and security imperative to invest; second, a robust sector assessment process to help us better understand and break down barriers to private investment in key areas of the economy; and, third, a set of community benefit principles that will ensure public investment and the private investment it generates leads to strong returns but also leads to stronger communities. In short, through this bill and the broader $22.7 billion plan associated with it, our government is going to maximise the economic and industrial benefits of our transition to net zero while securing our nation's place in a changing international strategic and economic context. Most importantly, this bill was offered in the national interest. To be able to take practical action on climate change, grow our economy and strengthen our nation all in one piece of legislation is an unmissable opportunity for this parliament. We are motivated on this side by the national interest, and I encourage all those in this place who share these sentiments to support this bill. This bill comes within our broader Future Made in Australia budget package. I mentioned its total value before, but it's worth mentioning again—$22.7 billion. That is a significant investment in the future of our nation. This package includes the Solar Sunshot, the Battery Breakthrough Initiatives, the National Interest Account, the production tax incentives for hydrogen and critical minerals and the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund. This plan sends an unmistakable message to the world: Australia is part of the solution and very much open for business. We're not passengers. We will be able to attract and enable investment in these important areas and cement our place as an indispensable part of global supply chains. The bill and the broader plan, while looking to promote our national interest, unashamedly looks to the world and our place in it. The world is changing, and we need to make sure that we keep up. Make no mistake: renewable energy is here to stay. Global markets have embraced the energy transition. Those who resist will be left well behind. The global economy is changing rapidly, and we must make sure Australia changes as well. The Future Made in Australia Bill will ensure we establish an enduring framework to underpin our national response to global economic changes and how we can take advantage of it. This is a plan for Australia's future, a plan that begins right now. These sorts of debates are always instructive and interesting as to the views and mood of the House on the great questions of the day. I have listened to a few of the contributions from those opposite. In the face of our plan, our vision for A Future Made in Australia, they have had little to offer. There is no counterplan. There is no alternative vision. There is no constructive criticism. All we have heard is carping and empty words. Debates in this place are not about cheap, political pointscoring. Debates in this place are supposed to be about alternative visions for our country. The government has presented a vision and a plan to take that vision and turn it into a reality. I have yet to hear of a similar vision or plan from those opposite. The closest we have come in this place to hearing something that closely resembles a vision from those opposite is their vision for a future powered by nuclear energy. We over here are talking about critical minerals, batteries and green hydrogen and articulating how we are going to use these opportunities to transform our country; those opposite are talking about nuclear power, but, as with their approach over the last decade, it's more distraction and inaction. There is no serious engagement with the significant challenges that nuclear power faces even to be a small part of our energy supply. There is no sensible conversation about cost, timing, location or workforce capacity. That's because, fundamentally, they're not serious. The nuclear thought bubble is a fig leaf to cover their opposition to meaningful action. We over here are talking about something real, measurable and achievable. We over here are talking about aligning Australia with the global energy transition, whilst over there they're still talking about moving in the opposite direction—perhaps to an Eagles powered 1970s. We over here are talking about a plan to create jobs and grow our economy, whilst over there there is no plan for jobs or the economy. The contrast, in fact, could not be more stark. We are all, in the end, judged by history, whether we like it or not. This bill and our plan for A Future Made in Australia are an effort to address and answer the great questions of our times: climate change, the energy transition, sustainable economic growth and the creation of well-paying and lasting jobs for the next generation and the generation that follows it. But in this debate we have heard nothing from those opposite that would indicate a willingness to offer a similar plan or vision. It's disappointing, but it's not my disappointment that matters. History will judge those opposite and the fact that, in the face of the great challenges facing us—in the fact of the most important questions of our times—again they had no answer and instead chose to play cheap political games. In conclusion, the Future Made in Australia Bill is an important part of our plan to make things here, grow our economy, create jobs, join the global energy transition and make real and practical steps towards tackling climate change. This is a bold plan to set our country up for the future, starting today. I couldn't be prouder to be associated with it, and I commend the bill to the House. 12:47 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I will keep very briefly with the Eagles theme. My friend the good member for Bean, having served his sentence of having to speak for such an unfortunate bill, may well understand the sentiment, 'We are all just prisoners here, of our own device,' but, having served his time, he can now take it easy, knowing that his job is done. The coalition will, quite sensibly, oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, but there is one thing on which I very strongly agree with the member for Bean: this is quite a fundamental question. The question that this bill presents to the parliament is the age-old question which is presented to all Western democracies: are we to move towards a market economy or towards a command economy? This is reflected in the very shape of this House—the for and against, the government and the opposition, the left and the right. This is the debate. It's been shaped in many different ways in many different times, but this is such a fundamental question that faces us. I think that in this bill we see Labor's vision for the economy laid out very strongly. This is a vision of an economy led and directed by a very small chosen few. It's no surprise when we think that where market economies have survived is where free democracies have survived, where the choice of the people, the decision of the greatest number, is enabled in choosing the guidance of the nation, and that where command economies have survived is where there has been a top-down approach, be that through a dictator or through some form of communist set-up. There exists a very big split between those, and the choices we make in this chamber are often very much about which one of those two directions we should go in. That's exactly where we find ourselves now. I will just say that I think this speaks to something more. It speaks to the idea that the economy and the society that wraps around it cannot be separated. Do we choose to be directed more firmly by the government, or do we allow the invisible hand to make its way? So this is a fundamental question and, when assessing this question, I would say that, for the Australian people themselves, the best way to assess the government is on their performance. I would ask the people of Australia, 'Are you better off under Labor? Are you better off than you were before this government came to power?' Sadly, we can look around and see the resounding answer to that, by almost every metric is, 'No, we're not.' Insolvencies are up—we see that in today's Australian. We're heading towards record levels of insolvencies. Productivity is down. The greatest drop in productivity since we started measuring productivity has happened under this term of government. Prices are up across the board by 10 per cent—18 per cent for working households. New houses have increased 19.7 per cent, bread and milk around 19 per cent. The prices of gas and electricity—the energy debate that forms such a key staple of the election we just had—have risen by over 20 per cent. No, we're not better off. What's important to know is that this is not by accident. There have been very firm and set policies similar to this one here from this government that have taken us down this direction. If you want to pin down a starting point, I would suggest you have a look at the 6,000-word essay by the Treasurer on how he was going to remake capitalism and how we were going to change our pathway completely from the market economy we've enjoyed and has driven us to be the most successful countries in the history of the world. We're going to move away from that to something called the care economy. I think what comes to mind is that age-old saying that when someone tells you who they are you should trust them. The Treasurer very much told us what he was going to do. He was leading us down this path. Look at our immigration policy, with the largest ever immigration intake in the middle of a housing crisis, making things worse at a time when our housing supply is at record low levels. It's no accident how we got there. Direct policy choices take us there. Price caps on gas have led, like they always have since the beginning of time, to higher prices. We've got IR legislation that has been panned by industry for its capacity to drive down productivity at a time, as I mentioned, when productivity has fallen more than it ever has before. We have a government that boasts two surpluses, but in their own budget papers confirm 10 years of deficits to follow. What an incredible choice to have made. Two surpluses for 10 deficits. I'm not sure we got a good bargain there, but that's a deliberate policy choice. Of course, what this adds up to is that we see things like real wages dropping nine per cent. People are worse off, and it's not by accident. It's because of policies exactly like this. In the Future Made in Australia Bill, what we see is a government that wants to take further control of the economy. I think it's right that we stop and we look at the direction the country is going in. On questions of where the economy is being led, we have a Treasurer currently so ideologically driven that he's quite happy to fight with the RBA openly in a period where we're trying to work together. We need the RBA and the government's fiscal and monetary policies to work together to bring inflation down. He's allowing his ideology to get in the way of that. I will give a brief moment of praise—because I think it's always good to find the diamond that shines in the river—for the simple audacity of this government. Following the 2022 election, when the byword was 'integrity', to produce so brazen a slush fund as this is quite brazen—a $4 billion slush fund that can be increased merely at the stroke of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's pen. No parliamentary oversight required, no scrutiny. This is a slush fund, plain and simple. I think John Kehoe in the AFR wrote this best when he said: Labor's Future Made in Australia election slogan is already turning into a taxpayer-funded slush fund to spray money around for almost any political objective the Albanese government can think of. It's quite damning to read those words out loud, but that is exactly what it is. I think the more we look into it, the worse this looks. The member for Bowman raised the issue of PsiQuantum. What really irks Australians who are hurting at the moment is when they see the actions of the government and it looks like money for mates. Sadly, the more you look at it that is exactly what it appears to be. I'll read from an Australian article from Geoff Chambers and Joe Kelly under the headline 'ALP network behind company that clinched $1bn deal': Two Labor-linked firms employed by US-based company PsiQuantum helped the private tech business facilitate nearly $1bn in taxpayer funds to build the world's first fault-tolerant quantum computer in Brisbane… Brookline Advisory lobbyists … —who worked as chief of staff for Labor deputy leader Richard Marles and communications director to Jim Chalmers respectively—have emerged as key players in securing the government equity and loans package. It goes further. There are significant links between, on one hand, the company who then were commissioned by PsiQuantum to prepare a report about the benefits of PsiQuantum and, on the other, the offices of Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Bill Shorten and the member for Parramatta as well. So we have here something that looks very much like money for mates, but sadly—and here's the bit where it gets really bad—it's not just money for mates; it's money for mates for nothing. I'm going to read from Bernard Keane, that renowned right-wing nutjob: Note that we won't actually get a quantum computer for that money, just access to one if and when it's built in Brisbane. Maybe that's what a "Future Made In Australia" will look like—foreign companies paid vast amounts of money to build things here but keep ownership of them. The more we look at what's being proposed by the government, the more it falls away and becomes a less and less credible alternative for Australians. Strangely, though, in the Prime Minister's defence of this bill, he's pointed to the Biden government's Inflation Reduction Act. Despite obviously significant differences in our economies, in our labour market flexibility and in our relative manufacturing industries, he has pointed to that act as an example of why we should go down this path. As it stands at the moment, that act has driven $110 billion in investment in the US. However—and this is a rather important point—it is now on track to cost US taxpayers over $800 billion across the next decade. This is the key issue when you go down the pathway of picking winners. When you don't have a market economy but instead have a command economy, when you are not choosing which way the market will move based on competitive advantage or the dictates of supply and demand but are picking winners, and when you are fundamentally providing a subsidy to an unviable or uncompetitive industry, that industry now has to rely upon subsidies to sustain itself. Once you start that, there are only two pathways: either you keep going with the subsidies forever and ever or, at the point that you stop the subsidies, the industry falls apart. What we're seeing already with that Inflation Reduction Act is the costs spiralling because subsidies, once started on an unproductive or unviable industry, will have to keep flowing, so we're committing ourselves to further and further spiralling spending just to keep these industries alive. We could speak on a number of other areas we've come across, but at the heart of this is this singular debate laid out very clearly for us in the 6,000-word vision of our Treasurer. Should we be guided by his hand or by that of the market? Should we listen to the market response, or should we be driven by political imperatives, by slush funds, by demands of mates and by industries that are aligned for political objectives? I ask the question again to the Australian people: are you better off? If you want to assess this bill, ask whether you are better off. This is exactly at the heart of this government's agenda. This could not be a more Labor driven bill. Have a look at where the rest of their policies have taken us. We're the only G10 nation where inflation has been going up since December. We have an entrenched GDP per capita recession. Today we saw the jobless numbers going up. The RBA confirmed that the only pathway for improvements in productivity that the RBA is mapping out at the moment is increased unemployment. Sadly, we have insolvency numbers going up. That's not just businesses going down; that is people losing their jobs. That's families having to make very tough decisions as the money coming into the household dries up. I want to speak to one point, and I think you could not get a greater demonstration of this than the member for Bean's contribution. Compare the derision aimed at the nuclear industry to the support for the green hydrogen industry. When you compare the relative technology readiness levels of those two industries, it is laughable that a political position could be established on one versus the other. It's quite comical. The nuclear industry has a competitive advantage in Australia. We produce it. I've worked at two nuclear mines. We produce it safely and efficiently. We provide it around the world. We are excellent at it. Our expertise in how to do it is sought by other nations. We have a domestic need for it. That's an industry that could be supported. It has a competitive advantage. It's made here and we have the expertise. It is in our ground. Compare that to green hydrogen, which is at a technology readiness level of 1 or maybe 1½. It is not used. There is not a buyer for it. It is not being bought. There could not be a more damning example of this than Mr Forrest's actions. Two weeks after securing an $8 billion commitment of subsidies for the production of green hydrogen, he walked away from it. The government has been asking for costings of nuclear. I can tell you what we know costings for hydrogen are: they're more than $8 billion. We know it's going to take more than $8 billion in subsidies to stay in or create a green hydrogen industry in Australia. What a comical difference that a political party could choose between those two. I think it speaks to the intent and the problems with a bill like this. When you are command-driven, when you have a command economy, where a government or a select few pick winners, you make terrible mistakes, and those mistakes have consequences. We very sensibly oppose this bill. We do so on grounds that are fundamental to our beliefs. I think it's very clear where the government wants to drive this economy: further and further under the dictate of a chosen few. 13:02 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Australia has an incredibly bright future, but it's up to this parliament as to exactly how bright that future is. We can choose to grab the opportunities that are in front of us or we can choose, as those opposite seek to do, to turn down the dimmer switch. We want this parliament to make a big strategic decision to choose Australia's future, to choose a future made here in Australia. Indeed, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is a choice: a choice to be a country that makes things here or a country that only imports things, a choice to be a country that exports new energy and the products of the net zero transformation or that watches exports dry up as our customers switch to clean energy and we choose not to, a choice to secure the jobs for not just the next generation but for many generations to come or to see those jobs go to our international competitors, a choice to attract private investment—again, this bill is about attracting private investment. We can choose to open that door to private investors or we can choose to shut the door and say, 'No, we've got it all under control, but we're instead choosing to spend $600 billion of government money on nuclear reactors owned by the government.' It's about choosing our future or choosing to stick with the lost opportunities of relentless negativity. I had a little bit of time on my hands yesterday, so I went through the Hansard on this debate from yesterday. I saw exactly what a policy-free zone the opposition have become. We saw the member for New England describe this bill as 'Kafka-esque socialist insanity'. We saw him say, in proving his point, that, under his analysis, 'You can't be an electrician in a coalmine.' That might be news to the people in the coalmines of Collie, where indeed they do have electricians doing very important work. We saw the member for Petrie open his speech very appropriately: the first words to come out of the member for Petrie's mouth were, 'The coalition will oppose'. I'm going to say for those opposite that we know you're going to oppose. You don't need to tell us. That doesn't come as a surprise. But at least he was telling the truth when he said, 'The coalition will oppose'. But then he strayed a little bit from the truth. The member for Petrie said, 'Australia of course has a proud and strong manufacturing industry, and the coalition has always supported it.' That might be news to thousands of workers in Holden, who might have a slightly different recollection of whether they got support from the coalition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition returned to truth when she said—again, the first thing she said on this bill—'I rise to oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill.' Again, no surprise there. Then we had the criticisms from the member for Hinkler. He said the reason he can't support this bill is, 'We see nothing for uranium and nothing for nuclear.' Well, if he wants to talk about seeing nothing for uranium and nothing for nuclear, maybe he'd like to look first in his own party room, because we have still seen nothing on their nuclear costings, nothing on the precise locations. The Leader of the National Party in Western Australia a couple of months ago was telling us they'd done all the geological surveys, for every one of the sites for the nuclear power plants, but won't release those geological surveys. I would have thought that if you respected communities and you were sitting on geological surveys about where you're going to place a nuclear reactor in their town then you would release those surveys. But no: we got criticism about having nothing for nuclear in our bill—and I agree; there is nothing for nuclear in this bill, and nor should there be. This is entirely about grabbing the opportunities of the future rather than the expensive ideas of the past. The member for Groom went out and said that this bill is somehow communism. I'll tell you what this bill is about. It's about making more things here in Australia. That's just practical common sense, in my view. It's about making our nation a renewable energy superpower, grabbing those opportunities, and making our economy more resilient and more secure. Our economy has felt the pressures of international challenges, and we saw that during the COVID pandemic. Why wouldn't you want a more resilient and more secure economy? We've proudly been doing that hard work of giving Australia that more resilient economy—our National Reconstruction Fund investing in manufacturing across our economy; the 500 fee-free TAFE places, building up the skills of our workforce; the investments we've made in our universities, in our science industry and in cyber capability; and the new jobs and expertise we are building up in our defence manufacturing program, which will be of particular benefit both to South Australia and to the wonderful state of Western Australia. And we have, for the first time in this country, a comprehensive plan for cleaner, cheaper energy for all Australians that can power advanced manufacturing and open up those opportunities of a net zero economy. I think it's also really important to note that this bill is clearly about maximising private investment. You need only look at the explanatory memorandum to see that this bill is laser focused on getting more private investment from the global capital markets into Australian jobs. That should be welcomed by everyone in this place. It's about getting more investment into our economy so we can be a more productive economy, a more productive Australia and a more economically secure Australia. One great example of that is the initiative for production tax credits. This initiative is something that pays on success. You get the tax credit only when you're producing these very essential critical minerals that we not only need but already have, right under our feet. As you walk through Western Australia, there are critical minerals in the ground. We can dig them up, refine them, turn them into advanced products and then sell those products. The private sector can make a hell of a lot of money out of that, and the Australian people can get fantastic jobs out of it, and we're going to incentivise that happening. There is no reduction in revenue where a company doesn't succeed. There is only support from the government where they are doing exactly what we and our international partners know Australia needs to be doing: supplying into global supply chains those critical minerals that are essential for so many industries and essential for the transformation to net zero. I have a particular view, and I've expressed my support for this. But obviously there are a range of other views, particularly in the Liberal Party, about whether or not this will be something that they support. I want to reference something that Libby Mettam, the Leader of the Western Australian Liberal Party, said recently. I know, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, that you know Libby Mettam well. I think she's someone who's actually come to this debate looking at it in the national interest even though she's, obviously, seeking office in the Western Australian parliament. She said, 'We, the Liberal Party, will always stand up for Western Australia and we will support this measure.' I welcome that commonsense support from the Leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. I understand, based on her own comments, that she is actively lobbying her federal colleagues, because she said: 'It's something that I will raise with my federal colleagues. We are committed to jobs and industry and new industries in Western Australia and that is my position.' Further, she talks to consistency, and we haven't seen that consistency from the Leader of the Opposition in this place. His consistency is just making sure he consistently says something different on the east coast to what he says when he comes to visit Western Australia. That, to him, is consistency. I note that Libby Mettam said, 'My commitment has been consistent in relation to this matter, and I’ll leave my comments there.' This bill is also about making sure that we do look to build our future in a way that aligns our national security with our economic security, and we make no apologies for that. That's what the United States does, as does the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Japan and Canada. So many nations around the world are right now safeguarding themselves against whatever that next global shock is. It might be conflict, another pandemic, a cyber attack or another international energy crisis. Those countries choose to take action. Australia should choose to take action, and we can do so by passing this bill. We've got to work in economic reality. We've got to recognise that other advanced economies are investing in their industrial base. We've got to recognise that 97 per cent of Australia's trading partners are committed to net zero—97 per cent of our trading partners! We want to keep that trade going. I not only want to keep that trade going; I want it to grow. I want to grab those opportunities. We also want to make sure that we don't just continue to extract and export our resources but also start doing what has been talked about by many sides of politics for many decades, where we don't just extract and we don't just export but we also start to add real value, because in adding value to our natural resources we create the highly skilled, high-paying jobs of the future. We can make things here. We can add value here. We can turn our resources that the world and global markets want into the products that the world wants, and make sure that, again, we secure the opportunities of not just the next generation but of generations to come. Australia can do this and do it incredibly well because we have done this before and we have done it incredibly well. I know those opposite don't like it when we talk about the car industry—I don't know why—but look at what we did when the car manufacturing industry was created here in Australia during the Second World War under John Curtin, Australia's and Western Australia's wartime Prime Minister, and Ben Chifley. They looked to the future. They looked beyond the immediate. They looked to what Australia would need in order to be set up for decades of success. And we saw Curtin appoint Chifley as the minister for reconstruction in the middle of World War II. The Prime Minister who saved Australia during World War II knew that he didn't just need to ensure that we won peace but also to ensure that we had prosperity on the other side of that conflict. They looked forward, they planned, and we saw hundreds of thousands of Australians get good-quality jobs and be able to raise their families and build a future for themselves, all because of that work. They also did the work that we seek to do—that is, to build a more diversified economy and a more decentralised economy, recognising that it was also our regions that were going to power this big transformation. It's our regions that are going to power a future made in Australia. What we see is that this will invest in our regions, securing Gladstone's future, a place that will be that global hub for clean energy and green industry. It will expand the wonderful medical manufacturing that we see in Victoria. In the upper Spencer Gulf in South Australia, we're making sure it is a producer of green iron, steel and cement, products that the world wants. Back in the Hunter Valley, it will mean new jobs, new technology and new manufacturing opportunities, making sure that workers across Western Australia—that one-third of the land mass—have critical minerals extracted, refined, exported and also turned into products. I think we also know that you can choose in this place to be optimistic about Australia's future or to be negative about our present. You can't build the future with negativity. If you're scared of change, you can't make change. You can't create good, well-paying jobs if you're opposed to fair workplaces. I think that the Australian public have seen the negativity that comes from those opposite. There's no surprises that when each of them stand up to speak on this bill they start with the words 'I rise to oppose the bill'. No surprises there, because they spoke the same words when they rose to oppose the National Reconstruction Fund. They spoke the same words when they came in here to make all sorts of wild excuses as to why they opposed energy bill relief that is now showing up in households' energy bills. They want to end fee-free TAFE. They want to shut the door on 500,000 people who have had the opportunity to build up new skills, get new jobs and provide for their families. They have an unhealthy obsession with attacking the CSIRO. They liked to describe Australia as 'a manufacturing graveyard'. I think Australia is a great manufacturing nation, and under this bill we have a bright future as a manufacturing nation. I commend the bill to the House. 13:17 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey We've just come out of the Olympics. Australia won 18 gold medals, 19 silver and 16 bronze—53 in total. It was an amazing performance and it filled Australians with great pride. It showed that our athletes and Australia are up with the best in the world in whatever they choose to do. The heroics of Ariarne Titmus and Kaylee McKeown in the pool, Jess Fox and her sister Noemie in the canoes, and Keegan Palmer and Arisa Trew on their skateboards, and the spectacular Nina Kennedy in the pole vault—all gold medallists, winning against the world's best, proving Aussies can do it against the world best, all competing on an equal footing. The same rules, the same tracks, the same pools and the same skate parks. It showed that Australia can more than hold its own. But Ariarne and Kaylee were not required to wear a loose tracksuit while they were swimming. The Fox sisters had Kevlar canoes, not wooden canvas. Keegan and Arisa had state-of-the-art skateboards, not an old plank and a second-hand pair of rollerskates strapped on underneath. Nina did not use the inflexible aluminium pole in the pole vault that we used when I attended Kimba Area School, I must say. They all competed on an equal basis. Here today in Australia, our industries are competing against the world, just like our athletes, but they're not competing on an equal basis. It is a tilted field, and some of that tilt is provided by those that compete against us. That could mean tariff barriers, subsidies, use of slave labour or enforced labour, or, in fact, use of child labour. In many cases, there's not a lot we can do about that, except our best in international courts. But a lot of that tilt is here in Australia. It's a self-imposed tilt against Australian industries. Australia is energy-rich, but our industries have some of the highest electricity prices in the world. We have some of the most restrictive work practices in the world, leading to some of the highest labour costs. Our gas prices are higher than they should be. Industries have to deal with: the safeguards mechanism; compliance costs ratcheting up higher every year, year on year; scope 3 emissions coming down the tunnel at them; the highest interest rates in a generation; inflation at a 20-year high and seemingly stuck there; new vehicle efficiency standards; new IR laws allowing employees to seek double their holiday allocations; pay for ever-increasing days of leave for an expanded number of reasons; despite the generous conditions, a skilled labour shortage; the compulsion to embed a union rep in a workplace at the employer's expense; and environmental activists who are increasingly aligning themselves with traditional owners to frustrate, delay and blow out the cost of new projects. I wonder why it is that business and investors are feeling under pressure here in Australia? Why don't we ask Kyle Chalmers to drag a wheelbarrow along behind him in the pool? The government says, 'Don't worry.' The Future Made in Australia Bill tells us: 'Don't worry about it. We'll level the playing field with taxpayers' money, subsidies, grants and even $350 off a business's electricity.' I am sure that will make an enormous impact, he says with his tongue in his cheek. The problem with these bills is that they lack structure and any guidance on where the government is going to spend the money, so it becomes, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, a slush fund. The $1 billion for the solar panel manufacturing plant at the site of the closed Liddell power station at Muswellbrook is a prime example. It is intended to capture a share of the Australian and, perhaps, the world market when at this stage over 90 per cent of the world's solar panels are coming out of China. I wonder why? China has cheap shower, cheap labour, cheap money, no carbon taxes and is already producing 90 per cent of the world's supply. Even more challenging for this new investment proposal in Australia is that China produces 97 per cent of the world's purpose-made silicon for the silicon wafers for PV solar. It's worth reflecting on that. Originally photovoltaic cells were made out of leftover bits of silicon from other processes. It was China that built these scale factories that have been able to drive the costs down. If Australia were to compete in this space, we would have to build scale factories of this size. We simply would not have the market. The Chinese panels are of world quality. You wouldn't want to kid yourself. If we are going to round the Chinese up at their own game, they are hardly a soft target. Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute said it was unclear what Australia's strategic was in solar manufacturing. He said, 'It's a bit of a bloodbath commercially.' He also said: The growth was enormous. The prices came down dramatically and that wiped out a lot of the companies making panels. I don't think any of that has changed. The question is this: it hasn't worked so far, so why would it be different this time? It is a good question. The Productivity Commission has said that this should be retrospectively tested against the national framework test. That's for good reason. This is exactly what I am talking about here. The government has chosen to back an industry without having a good understanding of how difficult that will be. They are playing to the opposition's strengths, if you like. I don't mean this opposition; I mean the business opposition. They could scarcely pick a more unlikely target: the product of the second-biggest economy in the world with few of the self-imposed handicaps that Australia excels in. All governments should be guided by reality, not excessive optimism. If the government was intent on supporting Australia manufacturing in an agnostic manner and not on their pet project, it would pay for it to concentrate on industries where our chances of success are much higher, such as ensuring we have more gas in the market, carbon capture and storage, and blue hydrogen. But they are all excluded from this bill. Not excluded and much more likely to be a success would be fertilisers or chemical plants to provide independent sovereign capacity for our world-class agricultural system. A good place to start may be the group of companies led by Australian Plant Proteins which planned to build a pulse protein plant processing capacity in South Australia under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative and where they were awarded $113 million. There were going to be three facilities. The South Australian government was putting in $65 million, and industry was putting in $200 million. Demand for plant based foods globally is booming, and you may well ask why we would build this in South Australia. It's because we already produce over 25 per cent of legumes in Australia and we have a very reliable climate in the lower north, mid-north and Yorke Peninsula. It was envisaged that we would be able to quadruple that amount, actually, and that is a highly rewarding task for farmers—to be growing in this pulse industry. My guess is that that is a much better proposal than the solar proposal. Of great concern to me in this legislation is the raid on EFIC, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, diverting its focus from driving exports to spreading the love locally. To put that in brackets, it's propping up the Labor vote in their electorates. Worth restating are the original objectives of the EFIC Act: to facilitate and encourage Australian export trade and overseas infrastructure development by providing finance, to encourage banks and other financial institutions to finance exports and overseas infrastructure development, to provide information and advice about finance to help support Australian export trade, to assist other Commonwealth entities and businesses in providing finance and financial services and to administer payments in relation to overseas aid. This is just a raid on a convenient pile of money, on a convenient source, that will lessen the capacity of EFIC to meet its primary purpose. That alone should be enough to discourage people from supporting this legislation. The Labor Party has a track record in this area. The Howard government established a $2 billion communications fund. It was a future fund like the Future Fund and the medical future fund. It was to provide an ongoing income stream to invest and reinvest in regional telecommunications. It was established in 2005 to ensure people in rural, regional and remote Australia were not left behind. What happened to that? Kevin Rudd was on an aeroplane to Western Australia one day and trying to work out what to do with the internet. He came up with a $4 million plan on the back of a drink coaster that sucked up the $2 billion out of the regional telecommunications fund. It's just like EFIC. It's a pile of money there that the Labor Party can't keep their hands off—kleptomaniacs. Across the board, Labor are clearly picking winners, preferencing their pet project—100 per cent renewable energy. We all support renewable energy. Everybody in this House would support renewable energy, and in South Australia it's very popular. In fact, there are 3,597 megawatts of installed capacity of renewable energy in South Australia, with 2,740 of that in my electorate of Grey. There are another 1,300 megawatts on roof tops. But, as I have explained to this House on a number of occasions, South Australia leads the nation in renewable energy, doubling that of the next mainland states. We also lead Australia in the electricity price race. We are 50 per cent higher in our retail than the next highest state in Australia. There's a complex underlying reason for this. It is not just the renewable energy at faceplate; it is the embedded subsidies that are in our bills, which people cannot see and which are hidden from their view, that are driving South Australia to this higher point. The reason for me focusing on that, and what it shows is that, governments and all of us Australians need to be fully aware of the actual consequence of legislation, the actual end outcome. I read in the newspaper just recently someone lamenting about the fact that people are being asked to shut off their rooftop solar because there's too much supply at certain times of the day. They basically said, 'Well, who would have thought of that?' They could have read what I said in this place 10 years ago. I thought of it. I don't blame anyone for chasing the government subsidies—this is what they've been told to do—but I said that the concept of rooftop solar in the end is like trying to put water back in the Murray through your garden hose. The system is just not plumbed for it. And now we've reached this point of maximum saturation, and the tipping point there becomes the cost of the backup in the renewable system. It's like a parabola: the higher you go up the scale, the higher the impact costs become. It's the reason why we need to reach an understanding of the issues and the things that actually drive the markets before we make these investment decisions— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games 43 13:30 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie What a successful Olympic Games. As we reflect on Australia's performance at the Paris Olympics, it's clear our athletes have once again showcased exceptional talent and determination on the global sporting stage. With a mix of seasoned champions and emerging talent, Australia made a significant impact continuing our proud tradition of sporting excellence. Team Australia walked away with 53 medals, including 18 gold medals, 19 silver and 16 bronze, and finished in fourth place. This is a tremendous effort from all athletes, coaches and everyone involved. Each and every one of our athletes demonstrated exceptional teamwork and strategic prowess. Each event was a testament to the rigorous preparation and commitment of our athletes, and their dedication and hard work have not only brought home gold but have also inspired a new generation of athletes. Whether it was in kayaking, skateboarding, cycling, tennis, athletics, BMX, sailing, shooting, equestrian, surfing, of course swimming or any sport, we did exceptionally well. As we celebrate these successes, we also look forward to future Olympic challenges, confident that our Australian athletes will continue to shine brightly on the world stage. Bring on LA in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032. Werriwa Electorate: Lurnea High School 43 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My electorate is home to some wonderful schools, not least Lurnea High School. I know Lurnea High better than most. I began my political career there when I was elected school captain. It seems like I've been campaigning ever since. Established in 1965, the school lives up to its motto, 'Truth through reason,' by producing generation after generation of students who do amazing things. But success is never achieved in isolation, and the current principal, Kylie Landrigan, provides outstanding leadership to her staff and students. I know this because I recently met with her current school leadership group, and their questions were just amazing. Pity then that, in a different parliamentary chamber in Sydney this week, a local member of parliament spent their time criticising the school, knowing full well the school and its leadership team are unable to respond publicly. And of course it goes without saying that the member's criticisms were sufficiently vague and didn't mention a single name under privilege, in doing so placing the entire school under a cloud. Positions such as ours are tremendously privileged and with that comes responsibility. Here's some advice for my colleagues in the New South Wales parliament: use your time at the dispatch box carefully and with a view to the damage that you may cause. Petition: Trains 43 13:33 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to table a very important petition signed by 6,600 concerned Australians calling for the legislation of mandatory minimum standards for train lighting. This petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. The petition read as follows— We the undersigned ask the Parliament of Australia to immediately implement mandatory and enforceable legislation requiring rotating beacon lights on the front of train locomotives and side lighting on locomotives and rolling stock. In Australia there is no legal requirement for trains to be lit to a particular standard. In contrast, oversize (excessively large) trucks are required by law to be fitted with flashing beacon lights and all trailers must be fitted with mandatory side lighting. Trains are at least 15 times heavier than trucks and can be up to 1.8km long, yet they have minimal frontal lighting and no side lighting. Trains remain the largest and most poorly lit vehicle on land. Two separate studies commissioned by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) have demonstrated that upgraded lighting significantly improves the visibility of trains at night, particularly for vehicles approaching level crossings at obtuse angles, which is a common situation in rural settings. Currently, 80% of the 23,000 railway crossings in Australia do not have warning lights, making it essential for trains to have adequate illumination. Between 1 July 2014 and 31 December 2022 across Australia's level crossings there were 7,839 near hits, 322 collisions, 39 fatalities and 49 serious injuries involving either road vehicles or pedestrians. We therefore ask the House to immediately implement legislation requiring rotating beacons on the front of locomotives and side lighting on locomotives and rolling stock to improve safety and reduce preventable accidents and fatalities at railway crossings. from 6,600 citizens (Petition No. EN6369) Petition received. Ms PRICE 249308 Currently in Australia, there is no legal requirement for trains to be lit to a particular standard. Given 80 per cent of Australia's 23,000 railway crossings lack warning lights, it is crucial for trains to be adequately illuminated to prevent accidents. I'd like to thank Western Australia state member for the North West Central, Merome Beard, for launching this very important petition. I also give thanks to Durack local Lara Jensen. Lara and her supporters have been fighting for better train lighting for decades following the tragic accident causing the death of her brother, Christian, and his friends, Jess Broad and Hilary Smith. A coronial inquest determined that they did not see the oncoming train and recommended for all locomotives to be fitted with external and ditch lighting. That was sadly made all the way back in 2001. The government, for what it's worth, does have a stated goal of zero harm at level crossings; however, they are currently looking to implement only a voluntary code for train visibility. That is simply not good enough. I call on the government to reconsider its position in light of this petition and to take the necessary actions to make our regions safer and to prevent further loss of life. International Day of Friendship 44 13:34 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean In the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2011, Australia and a raft of nations passed a resolution designating 30 July as the International Day of Friendship. This resolution extended an invitation to all member states and organisations to recognise the power, importance and relevance of friendship, highlighting the indisputable role friendship plays in bringing people together around the world. The resolution served as a reminder that we cannot have peace and prosperity among nations without having leaders and citizens who are willing to be friends. We know that friendship inspires peace, and with global peace we can bridge divides and build a better future for all. Earlier this week, I was privileged to join with my friend Armando Galte, the head of mission at the Embassy of Paraguay, to host an event at Parliament House to recognise the day, bringing together representatives of over 56 countries, along with members and senators. We must continue to commit ourselves to friendship and recognise the powerful role that friendship between peoples, countries, cultures and individuals has in building trust and contributing to long-term peace and stability. Never could there be a more important time to do so. Early Childhood Education 44 13:36 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Too often we talk about economics in the abstract. We debate the impact of something as fundamental as a pay rise as though it is just numbers on a balance sheet, but we must always remember that the decisions that we make in this place have a direct impact on the lives of everyday Australians. I was reminded of this yesterday when I met with several early childhood educators here at Parliament House. Last week, they won an historic 15 per cent pay rise, a life-changing victory that will transform the lives of these workers, who are mostly women. I have stood shoulder to shoulder with them in that campaign and have found their passion for their chosen vocation truly inspiring. What could be more important than educating our children? I met Cass and her baby boy, Archie. Cass told me that the pay rise will allow her to meet her family's needs and continue to do what she loves to do: educate our children. Better wages mean more workers and more places and enable more women to work. This step is a net positive for the economy, supporting children, empowering women and boosting productivity and prosperity. It's a win for everyone. Armenian Film Festival Australia 44 13:37 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Tomorrow night, I'll be heading over to Event Cinemas in Top Ryde to join Bennelong's vibrant Armenian community for the opening night of the Armenian Film Festival Australia. The film festival showcases the best Armenian films and is the only platform of its kind in Australia. Established in 2016, the Armenian Film Festival Australia has grown significantly, including feature films, documentaries, animations and short films in a broad range of genres. The festival's purpose is to showcase the rich Armenian culture and their tragic history, resilience and language through the medium of film, providing an opportunity for talent, creativity and storytelling. Particularly of note this year is the first-ever screening of The Golden Chain of Mercy, which features the untold story of Australia's connection to the Armenian genocide, unveiling a poignant story of survival where Anzac soldiers came to Armenia's aid amidst the cruelty of the genocide. Through these films, the Armenian Film Festival aims to entertain and inspire audiences, imploring them to challenge perspectives and open their eyes to the many issues Armenia faces today. The Armenian Film Festival begins tomorrow night with a customary gala opening—the gala night. The whole film festival runs right through to 25 August. I'd encourage all locals in Bennelong to pop up to Top Ryde and have a look. Universities 44 13:38 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong If you've got a HECS debt, I've got good news: $3 billion is about to be wiped from three million Australians' HECS debts. Today the bill to make that happen was introduced in the House of Representatives, and it should be passed shortly. This has happened because people from around the country stood up and demanded change. Earlier in the year, I started a petition to fix the broken HECS debt system, and 288,000 people signed it, making it one of the largest petitions in Australian political history. Those hundreds of thousands of Australians—students, graduates and the people who love them—put pressure on the government in a way that it could not ignore. This is just the start. We've only just started to fix the issue with HECS debts. We need to make degrees more affordable, we need to increase the threshold for payment, we need to change the timing of indexation and we need to stop HECS debts from stopping Australians buying their own homes. Together, we need to keep pressure on the major parties to do a whole lot more to address the rising cost of housing, energy and education. This is just the start. Vietnam Veterans' Day 45 13:40 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On Sunday 18 August, I will again be attending the annual Vietnam Veterans' Day commemoration service at Henderson Square in the Montague Farm Estate in Pooraka. The Montague Farm Estate has been dedicated to all Australians who served in the Vietnam War. For the families of the 521 Australians killed—58 of whom were from South Australia—and the more than 60,000 who served, the Vietnam experience was life-changing. Amongst those who served in Vietnam, around 19,000 had been conscripted, of whom over 200 lost their lives. Over the years I've met with numerous Vietnam War veterans, attended their events, listened to their stories and all too often heard of their lifelong struggles after their war experience. The Vietnam Veterans' Day service at Montague Farm and other commemorations held around the country are a reminder of the horrific war that our soldiers served in, the sacrifices and hardships they endured, the ongoing physical and emotional toll that many were left with and the demoralising lack of recognition they endured on their return home after having dutifully served their country. This Sunday is an opportunity for all of us to remember the lives lost, acknowledge the ongoing struggles of so many and to say thank you to the Australians who served in Vietnam. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 45 13:41 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Aggressive, intimidatory and criminal behaviour is nothing new for the CFMEU. Anyone who's worked on union dominated worksites, as I have, has seen it or its impacts firsthand. For years, this side of the House has been willing to stand up against these behaviours, none more so than the Leader of the Opposition. We've been willing to stand on the side of those who've experienced these bullying tactics. Labor's record on dealing with the CFMEU could not be more different. Rather than calling out their aggression, misogyny and corruption, they've turned a blind eye. Labor have taken millions of dollars in donations from the CFMEU, even while CFMEU members have been standing in the docks in the courts facing up to their crimes. Labor have been very happy to have CFMEU members standing on their polling booths handing out for them on voting day, they've been happy to give in to their demands to scrap the construction industry watchdog, the ABCC. Now that the CFMEU's behaviour has gone so far, Labor are trying to tell us that we should trust them to keep the CFMEU in a box. I do not trust Labor to control the CFMEU, I do not trust the CFMEU and I do not trust the CFMEU on the polling booth. I call on every member of this government to commit to not having a single CFMEU thug standing out on their polling booths intimidating voters. No Australian should feel afraid to play their part in our democracy. I call on the Labor candidate for Groom to make the same promise to the people of my electorate that they will not be intimidated by union thugs when the next election rolls forth. Employment: People With Disability, Tangney Electorate: Good Sammy Enterprises 45 13:42 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Recently I had the opportunity to visit Good Sammy Enterprises. Founded in 1950, the headquarters of this iconic Western Australian charity are in my electorate of Tangney. Of the 830 people who work at Good Sammy, 52 per cent of them have a disability. Considering that most employers have a workforce where less than one per cent of the staff have a disability, this is a truly inclusive workplace. There are one million Australians with a disability who are of working age who are not employed. People with disability face barriers to employment, and yet we know that having a job gives people purpose and meaning and also benefits our economy and society. The Albanese Labor government's new specialised disability employment program will come into effect on 1 July 2025. This program will help more people with disability, injury or health conditions to prepare for, find and maintain sustainable employment. Employment services play a critical role in creating pathways for people with disability. Thank you, Good Sammy for showing me an example of an inclusive workplace. Warren, Professor John Robin, AC 46 13:44 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to note and acknowledge the passing of the late Professor Robin Warren, a Nobel Prize winner, who was educated in my electorate of Sturt. Professor Warren passed away last month after a spectacular contribution throughout his career, culminating in his being jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for his pioneering work on peptic stomach ulcers. That work led to treatment of that condition through antibiotics. Somewhat interestingly—at least to me as the member for another Sturt—it was another great Sturt educated Australian, Howard Florey, Lord Florey, who pioneered the development of antibiotics, so Professor Warren's work was a remarkable continuation in a similar field to that of people like the great Lord Florey. I'm very proud of the connection to my electorate of a number of other Nobel Prize winners, including Sir William and Sir Lawrence Bragg, pioneers of the X-ray and winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and my current constituent JM Coetzee, a very famous author and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature. Vale, Professor Warren. He made an enormous contribution to our nation, and he was a great Australian whom we should always remember as a great Australian hero. Robertson Electorate: Avoca Beach Village Church 46 13:46 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The Avoca Beach Village Church celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2023 after six decades of continuous worship on its site at 62 The Round Drive, Avoca Beach. Famous for its white A-frame structure, the church was built in 1963 and has a congregation of 15 to 20 members. It is part of the Christian Community Churches of Australia and is a progressive, inclusive church. Every Sunday from 11 am till 12 pm, the community is invited to attend its worship service, which includes a friendly cuppa afterwards where everybody is welcome. The community is also encouraged to attend its regular Tuesday healing prayer sessions from 1 to 2 pm. Hosting frequent guest speakers, the community church always features interesting visitors to listen to. To recognise the 60th anniversary, the church recently underwent a renewal with fresh paint, new signs and a new carpet. With the assistance of members from both Kincumber and Copacabana men's sheds, the church is looking as good as new. So, on behalf of my office, I would like to congratulate the Avoca Beach Village Church on its 60th anniversary. The fabric of our communities is made stronger with churches like yours. Keep being an inclusive, welcoming and compassionate place for all of those in the community, not just in Avoca Beach but right across the Central Coast. Deakin Electorate: Nadrasca 46 13:47 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I want to highlight the important work of Nadrasca, a life-changing and purpose-giving disability support organisation in my electorate of Deakin. Recently I was fortunate enough to visit my good friends at Nadrasca in Nunawading, who every day support more than 300 people with a disability. Here, through a range of day programs, employment activities and various other activities, participants are able to achieve personal and professional objectives, including employment and even supported independent living opportunities. Nadrasca is a values based organisation and, importantly, makes no assumptions about the best way to support its participants to thrive. In fact, it's ultimately guided by the individual's personal goals, because we all know that no single pathway for someone with a disability exists. During my visit, I also learned about their youth employment program, which involves both classroom learning and industry immersion, and I was able to enjoy some time in class with the students. The program currently includes a very interesting project to commemorate the No. 75 tramline, which is the longest urban tramline in the world, stretching from Vermont South in my electorate all the way to Docklands. Nadrasca is an absolute pillar organisation of my community, and I want to thank everyone at Nadrasca for supporting people with disability with the love that they do. Citizenship 46 13:49 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Every day is a great day to reflect on what it means to be Australian. To this end, I draw upon and remind members of some of the fine words penned by the former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Andrew Giles to our newest citizens. He wrote that we are: … one of the world's most successful multicultural societies, with around half of all Australians either born overseas, or with at least one parent born overseas. In Australia, everyone can be proud of who they are—and everyone should be respected, valued and feel a sense of belonging. We are … united by our shared commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and to freedom of speech, religion and association. The minister warns us not to fall into the trap of hating others: Our diversity is our greatest strength, and we prosper by embracing this. We believe in a society in which everyone is equal, regardless of their gender, faith, sexual orientation, age, ability, race, national or ethnic origin. Ours is the land of the fair go, in which respect and compassion underpin our care for each other and our willingness to reach out to those around us in times of need. As Australians, our commitment is to these values. We ask new Australians to commit to these ideals, and so we must do the same. It is the responsibility of every adult Australian and every leader in this place to live this truth and to model our national values. Economy 47 13:50 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume There's new employment data out today and, whilst it's good to see some strength in the labour market, what sits underneath the numbers is an indictment of Labor's failed economic management. Australians are working harder for less. More people are looking for work, and Australians are working more hours to make ends meet. It's encouraging to see people in jobs, but we know that the number of unemployed Australians is climbing. The underutilisation rate has climbed, showing Australians want to work more to pay their bills but, increasingly, they can't find the hours or the jobs due to the anaemic growth in GDP per capita under Labor. This is a diabolical combination. High prices and low growth are signs of a weak economy. It's an indictment of our Treasurer and a lack of economic leadership under Labor. The fact is that we are absolutely at the back of the pack in dealing with inflation. As we've seen since December last year, we're the only one of the major countries around the world where inflation is going up, not down. The fall in our living standards is worse than that of any major advanced country in the G7. Our standard of living has fallen eight per cent since Labor came to power. This is an indictment of this Labor government. Refugees 47 13:52 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My family has experienced the devastating consequences of conflict. My mother felt the desperation of carrying her baby as she fled across the Mekong River. They lived the uncertainty of waiting in a refugee camp. My family has also experienced hope. They've experienced the safety and refuge this country provided them, and I have benefited from those opportunities Australia has given me. I'm grateful; every day, I'm grateful. My family's story was only possible because men and women in this place turned to the better angels of their nature. In 1977, then prime minister Malcolm Fraser developed Australia's first comprehensive refugee policy. One year later, my family arrived in this country. This is my direct appeal to the Leader of the Opposition: do not stoke fear in the communities. Do not undermine the work of our security agencies, because they are doing the important work of security vetting to keep us safe. Do not undermine the public trust in these institutions. From the daughter of migrants who had to flee conflict, this is my message to the Leader of the Opposition. I am appealing to the better angel of your nature. Be the person we need you to be, someone who aims to unite, not divide. Energy 47 13:53 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon During the six weeks that we weren't sitting, I've been going around my electorate doing listening posts, and the thing that has staggered me more than anything else is how many people have come up to me with their electricity and gas bills, wanting to know what can be done about it and asking me to take it up with the Prime Minister. I'm glad the Prime Minister is here today to hear me say to him that this cannot continue. One such constituent, Mrs Faulkner, has seen her gas bill go from $127 in May to $720 in July. She said to me, 'This is a cost-of-living crisis.' I've had small businesses come up to me saying that they are now working the first three or four days of every week for nothing because of the increase in their energy bills. They wanted me to say to the Prime Minister, 'This cost-of-living crisis is real, Prime Minister, and the cost of energy is driving it; you need to do something about it.' Otherwise, we'll have small-business people in my electorate working for nothing and pensioners unable to afford to turn their heating on. National Security 47 13:55 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara In 1938, the Evian Conference was convened in France, where delegates from 32 countries around the world gathered to discuss options for settling Jewish refugees fleeing Europe. Australia's delegate, Colonel White, infamously said: … we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one … My grandmother was one of the 9,000 European Jews who made it into Australia in 1939 before the war. She was included in that approach by Colonel White as potentially importing a racism problem into this country. She, of course, did not, nor was she any threat. She was a teacher. She held multiple degrees and she was a proud Australian. Back then, it was my community, and today, it is another. But our principles should be the same. I'm in full support of having a sensible conversation about our national security and immigration policy, but collectively categorising people fleeing from war is harmful. We don't have an immigration policy based on religion or race. We have not had one for a long time, and we should never go back. Our security agencies have a process that looks at individual people who are seeking a visa in this country. Anyone currently seen fleeing Gaza is also currently checked by Egypt and Israel. Ten months ago, on October 7, Hamas committed barbaric and unspeakable crimes. Of course, anyone who supports these should not be let into this country. The Palestinian people of Gaza, like my family and friends in Israel, did not choose this war, and we must maintain our humanity and respect human rights for all. War Graves 48 13:56 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Labor promised $3.7 million during the 2022 election campaign to match the coalition's commitment to establish an ongoing grant program to mark private graves of around 12,000 First World War veterans who died after the war and were left resting in unmarked graves in civilian cemeteries. When they did the 1933 census after the conclusion of the war in 1919, 38,000 veterans had died. So many of these veterans died from their wounds, from the trauma and from being gassed. When we say 'lest we forget', we have an obligation to this nation to make sure we can remember them because they have the dignity of a headstone. Regardless of the side of the political fence you're on, we have to ensure that this dignity is maintained and that this funding is returned. Here are the records of one of those people. It's quite substantial. When you look at these records, you see the miserable lives they lived: shot twice, malaria, being put into hospital, being taken out of hospital, wasn't killed, names not on brass. It's records like these, with that person lying in an unmarked grave, where we are responsible for going out and finding and giving them some dignity. Lest we forget. Small Business 48 13:58 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Small businesses right around Australia are doing it tough. From my experience in business, I know that the looming deadlines to pay the bills, meet payroll, and serve customers can often feel like an unbearable burden on your shoulders. Small-business people walk into the office every morning knowing that no matter how hard it is, they just have to keep going because their employees and their customers rely on them. It was particularly tone deaf of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last night to walk into a small business gathering and berate those small-business people for not being sufficiently critical of the Labor Party and not being sufficiently supportive of the Liberal Party. Maybe the Liberal Party isn't getting the support they want from businesses because they aren't supporting those small-business people. They are the party suggesting we use draconian divestiture powers to break up business. They are the party reducing business certainty in the energy sector. They are the party lecturing businesses on what they can and cannot say on social issues, and now they are demanding that small businesses spout Liberal Party talking points. This is the most antibusiness Liberal Party in Australia's history. No wonder they aren't getting the support they so desperately crave. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Middle East: Migration 48 14:00 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration. The Albanese government, primarily under Minister Giles, has issued more than 2,900 visas to individuals from the Gaza war zone since the October 7 atrocity. Were all these individuals asked whether or not they have sympathies for Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation? 14:00 Mr BURKE DYW Watson First of all, it's odd to have people thinking they can be in charge of national security when they can't even nominate for local government as a party! I explained yesterday the process and the involvement that ASIO has in terms of the process we have, which is the same as what was used under the previous government. Economy 48 14:01 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government creating jobs and setting up a future made in Australia? How does this compare to previous approaches? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Watson for his question. Today's jobs figures do show a slight uptick in unemployment to 4.2 per cent, reflecting, of course, the fact that these are difficult times for many Australians, but they also show once again a new figure for the most jobs being created by any government in Australia's history since Federation: 989,000 as we approach the one million mark, which we hope to hit before the end of this year. That compares with the first two years of other governments. It is triple what was created under the Abbott government's first two years, at just over 300,000 jobs. It is almost double the number that was created under the Turnbull government during their first two years. And the Morrison government, of course, saw a decrease of 66,000 jobs during their first two years. We are also seeing a record high participation rate of 67.1 per cent and, importantly, a new record-low gender pay gap of just 12.5 per cent. It was 14.1 when we were elected in May of 2022. We came to government with a commitment to help close the gender pay gap, and that's exactly what we are seeing. That isn't a coincidence. We changed the Fair Work Act to make gender equity an objective of the work of the Fair Work Commission. We have banned pay secrecy clauses. We have modernised the bargaining system. We are enforcing transparent gender pay gap reporting. And, of course, in feminised industries such as aged care and child care, we have supported pay rises for those workers—those workers who kept our economy going during the pandemic, who deserve not just our thanks on an ongoing basis but a decent wage and conditions. I'm asked by the member for Robertson as well about a future made in Australia and future jobs. That's why we're planning for the future, not satisfied with dealing with the immediate challenges. The Future Made in Australia, working with Jobs and Skills Australia to identify training opportunities, is about identifying those industries and those opportunities that can be seized in the future for future job growth, dealing with the immediate challenges whilst also having our eye on a positive and better future. Middle East: Migration 49 14:04 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. During question time yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that people applying for visas from the terrorist-controlled Gaza war zone were undergoing ASIO security assessments. Will the Prime Minister now confirm that this is not accurate? 14:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'll refer to what the ASIO director-general himself has said: If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing. As— Mr ALBANESE R36 It's a direct quote. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister— Mr ALBANESE R36 It is a direct quote from Insiders on 11 August. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). We're not having this today. There's been far too much disorder in the chamber through the week. If it continues, there will be a general warning issued. The member for Fisher then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 That was a direct quote from Mr Burgess on the Insiders program. He went on to say: For all immigration, including when you're balancing humanitarian needs, security checks are critically important. There are processes in place and I can assure your audience that, when things get referred to ASIO, we deal with them effectively. That's what he said, but he has said more than that. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. I'm calling for order in the chamber. I want to listen carefully to make sure the Prime Minister is being directly relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 At the press conference that was held with me he also said: After the 7th of October, I warned that inflamed language could lead to inflamed community tensions. Unfortunately this is what's playing out. … … … This is really a matter for everyone—community leaders, politicians, the media. Watch your words, watch your actions … there is a direct correlation between inflamed language, inflamed tension, and violence … I would have thought there was no moment more unifying in our nation than when we welcomed Olympians home yesterday morning. It was a chance for the Leader of the Opposition to practise that smile that we've heard so much about, and yet he chose this moment, of all moments, to be divisive. He made a moment meant to be about champions about himself. The scarf stayed on, but the mask came off. He sows fear and he sows division. That's what he does. That's what he's done his entire political career, and that's what he continues to do. Employment 50 14:07 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. What do today's jobs numbers tell us about the state of the economy? Why is the Albanese Labor government's economic plan so important, and what economic policies have been rejected? 14:07 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The wonderful member for Dunkley cares about jobs and the cost of living, even if those opposite don't. Even in a very soft economy we are still creating tens of thousands of new jobs, and it's a tribute to our workers and to our employers that so many new jobs were created last month, despite all of the economic challenges coming at us. There were 58,200 new jobs created in July and all of them were full time. Almost a million jobs have been created on our watch, and that is a record. No government or Prime Minister has ever overseen more job creation in a single parliamentary term than this Prime Minister and his government. As he said a moment ago, we need to put these numbers in context. We acknowledge that the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2 per cent in July, and we know that it was about 3½ in the middle of last year. We know job ads have weakened in 11 of the last 12 months as well. We anticipated this in our budget forecast, which expects our economy to slow because of higher interest rates and global economic uncertainty. The reason that we have a rising unemployment rate and are still creating new jobs is that participation is at a new record high as well. All of this means that more Australians are working, more Australians are earning more and more Australians are keeping more of what they earn. There are also numbers today which show that average full-time workers are earning $159 more a week since we came to office. The same taxpayer is paying $43 a week less tax. The gender pay gap is now the narrowest it has been at any stage. This is welcome and deliberate, not accidental. Our objective is to get on top of inflation without smashing jobs or the economy. Today shows we are making progress. There are almost one million jobs, inflation has come off substantially, wages growth has almost doubled, the gender pay gap is at a record low and there are tax cuts for every taxpayer. We have still turned two big Liberal deficits into two big Labor surpluses. These are the dividends of our responsible economic management. This is the major dividing line between those opposite and our side of the House. They desperately want higher unemployment, higher inflation, higher interest rates, lower wages and less help for people who are doing it tough in our community. We are getting on with the job of getting on top of inflation without smashing jobs and without smashing the economy. Because of our efforts and on our watch more people are working and more people are earning more and keeping more of what they are. We see that in today's new numbers despite the much slower growth and the international uncertainty that we are seeing in our economy. First Nations Australians 50 14:10 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy PM, in Cloncurry, my brother-cousins on their homelands cannot secure a freehold title deed or a pastoral lease, yet both are available to every whitefella. Wouldn't Monash professor Sarah Maddison's The Colonial Fantasy and WTO economists' history of capital provide powerful arguments for issuing title deeds and explaining why the life expectancy of homeland First Australians is just 56? Why is the government ignoring First Australians, labelled parliament wasters, but blocking Gazan refugees, yet ignoring a similar blocking by Egypt, Jordan and Iran? The SPEAKER 53517 There was a lot in there. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. One of my first experiences in this parliament as a very young fellow at the time was to appear on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs committee with the member for Kennedy. We travelled to his electorate extensively. There I saw the relationship that he had with First Nations people in his community. I know that he is very genuine about that commitment and about the need to close the gap and to provide economic opportunities. When it comes to pastoral leases and the interaction with native title, that is something that occurs at the state level rather than something that the Commonwealth has the capacity to change. But he is right to talk about the life expectancy of First Australians being so much lower than that of non-Indigenous Australians. That's a tragedy. That's something that's unacceptable. That's something that everyone in this parliament across governments, current and past, have to accept responsibility for. That's why we certainly need to do better. That's why we have measures that I'm sure that the member would support, such as the changes that the former Indigenous affairs minister put in place to turn what is essentially a make-work program into real jobs with real training and real skills for Indigenous Australians. I've met with First Nations people from the member's electorate, just north of the Curry, very recently in some of those remote communities and heard from them firsthand about their desire to seek a better future for not just themselves but their children. That's why as well education and TAFE and providing those opportunities and skills is so important as we move forward. I am certainly willing to continue to work with the member for Kennedy on these issues not just in his electorate but throughout the whole nation and how we deal with these challenges. It shouldn't be the case that anyone should be able to determine someone's opportunities and where they will end up in life by the postcode in which they were born or the circumstances in which they were born. That's not the Australian way. Unfortunately, that gap remains far too great. I will continue to engage constructively with the member for Kennedy, and I thank him for his question. Future Made in Australia 51 14:14 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How will the Albanese Labor government's production tax incentive for critical minerals grow a new industry here in Australia? What are the barriers to delivering a Future Made in Australia? 14:15 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the remarkable member for Pearce for that question. The road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector. Australia has all the critical minerals and rare earth elements the world needs to decarbonise. There are no solar panels, wind turbines or storage batteries without them. We have a generational opportunity to move beyond extracting to concentrating our valuable ore to create a new critical minerals processing industry right here in Australia. The Albanese Labor government will encourage processing onshore through a 10 per cent production tax incentive that will drive the creation and resilience of this new industry, built on this country's traditional resources of coal, gas and iron ore that are the cornerstone of our economy. The critical minerals industry faces challenges. We face market disruption, market manipulation, price fluctuations and supply-chain disruptions that are also affecting our trading partners around the world. These challenges will not disappear with wishful thinking. That's one barrier, but another major barrier to our growing critical minerals industry here in Australia is those opposite. The Liberals and the Nationals in this House and in the other place have turned their back on the resources sector and have opposed a production tax incentive. So, what do they have? That is a very good question. The shadow Treasurer is reading off the opposition's east coast script and the Leader of the Opposition is reading off the west coast script. But we really look forward to that WA package that might deliver us a gold medal in backflips; it could put us up the table in the Olympics gold medal list! But up there in Queensland, unlike down there in Collie—maybe the member for Flynn could tell us a bit about it? He might feel differently about the production tax incentive. After all, Alpha HPA is starting Australia's first high-purity alumina processing facility in Gladstone, in his electorate. Yesterday he spoke about the Future Made in Australia, but he spoke more about uranium than he did about critical minerals. Queensland, as we all know and as you know, Mr Speaker, is a great resources state. In contrast to the member for Flynn and others, the Prime Minister and I visited Alpha HPA earlier this year to see their work. And what did the member for Capricornia have to say about the production tax incentive? Well, absolutely nothing, of course. And what did the member for Leichhardt have to say about it? Despite the fact that he has a tungsten mine in his electorate that wants to go to processing, we haven't even heard from him. The Queensland Resources Council are behind the production tax incentive. I want to be very clear. What each and every member of the LNP in this House and in the Senate are doing is doing people in your electorates out of jobs and money. By not backing the production tax incentive you are putting your own people behind. (Time expired) National Security 51 14:18 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he was running exactly the same process in granting visas to those in the Gaza war zone as the previous government did when accepting people from Syria and Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister knows, that is not what happened under our government, where people were removed to third-party countries and attended face-to-face interviews, and some visas took up to 12 months to process. Will the Prime Minister apologise for misleading the House? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the deputy leader for her question. We take the same advice from the same security agencies, even the same security personnel, as the previous government did. We have confidence in our security agencies. If those opposite don't have confidence in those security agencies, they should say so. We don't discuss the details of the methods our agencies use to determine whether someone is a national security risk, which is something that those people who've been on a national security committee know is the case. In 2017, then minister, now Leader of the Opposition, issued an additional 12,000 visas to Syrian and Iraqi refugees. He indeed issued a media release that said: Australia welcomed these people who could now make a fresh start and build a safe future far from the horrors of the conflict. I encourage them to enjoy all that Australia has to offer … If those people want to suggest what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition occurred, that that occurred when Kabul was being evacuated, then she must think that all of us have a very short memory. The fact is that that is what he said. When we were in opposition, we backed the government. We didn't look for a way to divide the country and we didn't look for a way to undermine national security, because we know it is simply too important to play games. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is now warned. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 National security is too important for the sort of divisive politics that those opposite are trying to play here. They know that that's the case, but they simply don't care. For them, everything that happens is an opportunity to try to divide Australia. In spite of the director-general of ASIO's very clear warnings about the climate that we are in and his call for responsible political leadership, we're seeing anything but that from those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate your advice in relationship to this matter. It's been brought to my attention that the Prime Minister, in quoting the director-general of ASIO earlier, misquoted the director-general. The Prime Minister said in his quote from Mr Burgess, 'If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process, they're referred to my organisation, and ASIO does its thing.' Mr Burgess actually said on Insiders: 'If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process. Part of the process is where criteria are hit they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.' There's quite a different import from the Prime Minister's interpretation and I would ask you to invite the Prime Minister to correct the record given this is the first available opportunity for him to do that. The SPEAKER 53517 Just so that I'm clear, the Leader of the Opposition is claiming the ASIO director was misquoted? If the Prime Minister has made a statement and he believes it's incorrect, he has the ability to do that. Members don't normally intervene. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I was just struggling to work out what standing order the point of order was on because it just sounded like a speech. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left. If people have an issue when something is being said, I remind all members that the time to do that is at the time. If you're taking a point of order and you believe someone is not being relevant, it's not after the case. If any minister or member has made a statement, they have the ability to correct it. But I don't know what was exactly said here. The Prime Minister on the point of order? Mr Albanese R36 I'm happy to respond on the point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has confirmed the accuracy of what I have said. What I have not done is read out the entire Insiders transcript. If he wishes me to do so, I will do so, but I read out three different things that the director-general of ASIO said. The SPEAKER 53517 We need to move on. Just for clarity, it places the Speaker in a difficult position when I don't have an exact copy of Hansard in front of me at the time. It's not normally the time to raise these issues. Moving forward, if someone believes someone has said the wrong thing or misquoted, the time to do that is not in question time. It's perhaps best raised in another forum or directly at the end of question time. The Leader of the Opposition, further to the point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Sorry to further delay you, Mr Speaker, but this is a very significant issue. The Prime Minister has had his attention drawn to a very serious matter. I raised it at the first point that I was made aware of it, so I couldn't raise the point of order at the conclusion of the Prime Minister's answer earlier. I wasn't suggesting earlier that there was a deliberate misleading of the House, but I am saying to you now that the Prime Minister's error has been drawn to the attention of the House. The Prime Minister has gone on— The SPEAKER 53517 Okay. Mr Dutton 00AKI I think this is an important point. The Prime Minister has gone on to deliberately mislead this House. That is what has happened here. He has deliberately misled the House, and he should correct the record. Government members interjecting— Mr Dutton 00AKI Absolutely, he did. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. The Leader of the Opposition raised a point, which I allowed with courtesy. The Prime Minister did respond to that regarding that matter. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 53 14:25 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What action is the government taking to clean up the CFMEU, and what threatens to delay this action? 14:26 Mr BURKE DYW Watson At around 3 o'clock today in the Senate, there will be a vote as to whether or not the legislation to intervene and to put administrators into the CFMEU gets dealt with in that house today. If it's carried, the impact of that legislation will be that the current leadership of the CFMEU is removed and an administrator is put in. The administrator will have the power to go person by person through the different office holders in the union and make sure that people are of proper character and, if they're not, remove them. They'll be able to look at the financial flow and make sure that money is not being improperly spent. They'll be able to make sure that CFMEU members get what other union members get, and that is a union that acts in their interests. After the number of times that we've heard those opposite say that they would be tough on the CFMEU, what I never expected was that, at this moment, the person who might be riding to the rescue of John Setka would be the Leader of the Opposition. There are two sorts of people who want this legislation delayed: there are the CFMEU's lawyers and there are the Liberals and the Nationals in the Senate, directed by the Leader of the Opposition. He might think that he was always tough on them because he used to come up and give really tough dixers, but I've never seen an outlaw motorcycle gang say, 'Oh, I'm scared of the dorothy dixer from the now Leader of the Opposition.' What they would say is they are scared that their business model is broken, and they know that this legislation breaks that business model. We are now down to half an hour before that debate starts in the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition has to decide whether he's true to the words that he's made a career of talking about, or whether he's about to become John Setka's best friend. The contrast couldn't be greater. On one side of the table, we have someone who, within weeks of becoming leader of his party, expelled John Setka from the Labor Party, and the person sitting opposite him is now wanting to see if he can be the saviour of the current leadership of the CFMEU. If he won't listen to reason, he should at least listen to people who are not on our side of politics but have made their positions clear. Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders Australia, who is not a card-carrying member of the Labor Party, says: … it's disappointing to date that they are not listening to the industry. They're not listening to the people on the ground that are saying we want administration, not deregistration. Jon Davies from the Constructors Association refers to the fact that the delay is beginning to have 'tangible effects on the industry in terms of both project outcomes and business operations'. If they want to save the leadership of the CFMEU, it's on them. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Vietnamese Community in Australia, Victory Lutheran College, Sydney Montessori School, Dick, Hon. Cameron 53 14:29 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House that present in the gallery today is Dr Cuong Bui AM, President of the Queensland Chapter of the Vietnamese Community Australia, and also federal and state presidents of the Vietnamese Community in Australia. We have school students from Victory Lutheran College, in Wodonga, in the member for Indi's electorate, and students from the Sydney Montessori School, in Gymea, in the member for Cook's electorate. We also have the Deputy Premier and Treasurer of the state of Queensland, the Hon. Cameron Dick, in the gallery today. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Middle East: Migration 53 14:30 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, of the more than 2,900 people issued visas from the terrorist-controlled Gaza war zone, primarily let in by the former immigration minister, the member for Scullin, have all of them been subjected to a biometric test and an in-person interview? 14:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler On biometric testing, that is something that the director-general of ASIO addressed as well on his Insiders interview on Sunday. What we have done is make sure that we work with our security agencies to keep Australians safe. That's what we do. In terms of the result of that, on— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Member for Casey! Mr ALBANESE R36 This morning, one of those people was Dr Mona Kaskeen. I listened to her on RN this morning. She's a Palestinian neurosurgeon who fled Gaza and who's now in Sydney. This is what she said about how she got to come here: 'The people who came from Gaza—they are seeking good life for them and their children. They are very highly qualified people because many of them are doctors and engineers. They are people seeking a good life. We came here just to live in peace and to protect our family. I like Australia. I like living here. It's quiet and safe. My children feel safe here. The people from Gaza—they want to live safe and protect their family. They want to live in peace'—just like so many of the people who came under the former government from— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister was directly answering the question with a case example about one of the people that he was asked about. I'm not sure how you could possibly ask a question of relevance on this, Member for Wannon. That's the key—not to say that you're rising on a point of relevance. I'll give you that tip. Member for Wannon. Mr Tehan 210911 It is on relevance, Speaker. The question was, 'Have all of them?'—not 'one'. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The question in its first part referred to the entire case load, which makes the reference to a part of that case load completely in order. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister wasn't talking about a visa from somewhere else or another person, but, if you've asked a question specifically about the number of visas issued, of course it's going to be directly relevant for him to talk about a case. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm talking about a real human being who's now here. That's what this is about: real human beings, with real children, real families, real trauma and real tragedy. The impact that that has had, whether it be in the innocent lives that have been lost in Israel or the innocent lives that have been lost in Gaza—that has had a traumatic effect on everyone who is related to them here and on the communities, whether that be the Israeli community or the Palestinian community. That is one of the reasons why we have been asked by those people who run our national security to lower the temperature and to think about what we do as political leaders. The former Deputy Prime Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for him. I was with him in his community, including with migrants, just a couple of weeks ago in Cowra. He spoke to me about migration, including about people formerly from Afghanistan who've settled in central western New South Wales and who are good citizens. This is what Dr Kaskeen said today, 'Whoever crosses the border— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I do not need assistance with time, because it will apply to both sides when people are over in their questions. I don't think anyone wants that either. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith. The SPEAKER 53517 No. The Leader of the Opposition, it goes side to side, so— Mr Dutton 00AKI The Prime Minister had concluded his answer, Mr Speaker. Nobody had sought the call. The SPEAKER 53517 On a point of order, it doesn't work like that. We are not going to go down this path. If you wish to raise a point of order, you can do so, but a suspension goes side to side. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, with respect, I wasn't seeking to make a point of order. You said that. I didn't. I didn't seek the call for a point of order. I stood seeking the call. The honourable member opposite—no reflection on him—had not stood to seek the call, and, Mr Speaker, you recognised me as such. And I seek the call to suspend standing orders on that basis. Mr Speaker, I move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended— The SPEAKER 53517 Just pause a moment. We're going to deal with this. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! I'll get the Leader of the Opposition to resume. We'll deal with this in an orderly way. The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I'm speaking to the point of order. When you called the Leader of the Opposition, you specifically said, 'On a point of order'. It was quite clear to the Leader of the Opposition when he was getting the call that it was on a point of order. It has always been the case with the alternating call that, if you want to move a suspension, you wait until the opposition side, or the non-government benches, gets the call. It's been that way for a long time. In opposition, of course, opposition members want to do it straight away, but that has always been the procedure. It is also the case, as we shouldn't have let go of, that, if someone's rising on a point of order, they get the call for that, but, if it's a suspension, it's treated the same way as the concept of questions alternating side to side. Mr Dutton 00AKI On a point of order, and again with respect to the Leader of the House, that is not practice in relation to the way in which the standing orders have been enforced and operate in this chamber. The call given by the Speaker to somebody seeking the call, whether for a suspension of standing orders or for a point otherwise, has been the longstanding practice of speakers, current and past, and I think you should adhere to that, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. The difficulty I'm in—on the similar point of order, the member for Warringah. Ms Steggall 175696 To assist the House, the member for Macnamara was on his feet seeking the call in accordance with, should I say— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left, do not interject on the member for Warringah. The member for Warringah, on a point of order. Ms Steggall 175696 I would note that it is the practice of the Speaker, in respect of the position of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to always give them the call preferential to anyone else in the chamber because they are at the table. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to abandon the practice of respecting that he has given the call on an assumption of a point of order, then I would respectfully submit that there can no longer be a precedence of those at the table over other members of the House in seeking the call, because, if not, it is a preferential treatment. The application of the standing orders should be equal to all in this place. There shouldn't be exceptions for the Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to deal with this. I like to treat everyone fairly and give everyone a fair go. Just as when it was the government's turn for a question, the leader wanted to raise the point about a statement. If I were to simply worry about who was moving suspensions, I'd never acknowledge when it was the government's time, so I have to have that flexibility of allowing that. The member for Warringah is correct. Out of respect for the leader and the deputy leader, they do get the call because of the high office that they hold. It is not right or fair for the person on this side who then wishes to have the question. We're just going to move forward now, and I give the call to the honourable member for Macnamara. Universities 55 14:39 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It's very kind of you, Speaker; it is a good one. My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ease cost-of-living pressures on students and build a better and fairer education system? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert is warned. 14:40 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank the magnificent member for Macnamara for his question. This morning, I introduced legislation to wipe $3 billion of student debt for more than three million Australians, including more than 27,000 people in the member for Macnamara's electorate. As members know, I asked the Universities Accord team for advice on this and they advised that we should set indexation at either inflation or wages, whatever is lowest. We're doing that and going further than that: we're backdating it to last year. In other words, we're wiping out what happened last year and making sure that it never happens again. For someone with an average HECS debt of, say, $26,000, it means it will cut their debt by about $1,200. For someone with a HECS debt of about $45,000, it will cut their debt by about $2,000. It's an important reform to make HECS fairer. But that's not the only thing the bill does. The legislation also establishes, for the first time ever, paid prac. For the first time ever, the Commonwealth government will provide financial support for teaching students, nursing students, midwifery students and social work students while they do their practical training. These are people who have signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country, people who are going to help educate our children, look after us when we're sick or when we're old or support women in domestic violence refuges. A big part of becoming a teacher or a nurse or a social worker is that practical training. Sometimes they have to give up their part-time job to do it. So this is a bit of practical help to do your practical training. This legislation also uncaps funding for FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses. These are the short courses that act as a bridge between school and uni that help to give you the skills you need to do a university degree. The advice from my department is that this has the potential to double the number of people doing these courses by the end of the next decade. Wiping HECS debt, providing paid prac and funding fee-free university courses helps with the cost of degrees, helps with the cost of living and, most importantly, helps with the cost of young people missing out on the chance to go to university in the first place, in particular young people from poor families, young people from the outer suburbs and young people from the regions and the bush. It's just one part of the reforms that we're making to build a better and a fairer education system. MOTIONS 56 MOTIONS Prime Minister 56 14:42 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion: That this House: (a) notes that the Prime Minister has purported to quote statements made by the director-general of ASIO in a recent interview on Insiders; (b) notes that the purported quote specifically omits key words; (c) considers that this constitutes a deliberate misleading of this House; and (d) calls on the Prime Minister to apologise to this House. This Prime Minister has no shame. He's misled the House, and he should apologise. He's made our country less safe. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Under standing order 47(e), I require the debate to take place after the MPI. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Early Childhood Education 56 14:43 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. Why is it important to invest in the early childhood education and care workforce? What has been the response to the Albanese government's investment in this sector? 14:44 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the fantastic member for Hawke for his question. I want to acknowledge his commitment and his advocacy for early childhood education and care workers in his electorate. On this side of the chamber, we recognise the transformative benefits of early childhood education during that crucial period of a child's first five years of life, when 90 per cent of brain development occurs. Our skilled early childhood educators and teachers support that development. They support children's development through play based learning and in those important years before school. We've just wrapped up Early Learning Matters Week, which showcased play based learning and the importance that that has in the formation of child development. However, we also know that for too long this work has been undervalued. That's why our historic announcement of a 15 per cent pay rise across the early childhood education sector is incredibly important. This pay rise means that by the end of this year early childhood educators—around 200,000 of them right across Australia—will get at least an extra $100 in their pay packets. By the end of next year, that will be at least $150. Sam Page, my dear friend and the CEO of Early Learning Australia, said: This announcement marks a pivotal moment for the early childhood education and care sector, underscoring the importance of investing in the workforce that supports the growth, learning and development of Australia's children. While those opposite might not understand this, parents, grandparents and caregivers do. They know what these workers do for their children. They see their children flourish in early childhood education. In response to our announcement, Dr Caroline Croser-Barlow, the CEO of the Front Project, had this to say: Parents and caregivers understand that better pay is not only fair but also crucial for attracting and retaining quality educators who are committed to the long-term development of their children. I want to finish with the words of Sunitha. She's an early childhood educator, and she says: … we were having all educators leaving in the past few years because the pay is so low and now they will be coming back. Already they have been contacting me and saying that we are coming back—that's a great win. Sunitha is right. This is a great win. It's a win for workers, it's a win for children, it's a win for our economy and it's a win for our country. Calare Electorate: Visa Refusal or Cancellation 57 14:46 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Home Affairs. The Nguyen family of Bathurst are much loved and highly respected in our local community. They run the Anam Vietnamese restaurant, which is a Bathurst institution, and they've made a very significant contribution to Bathurst and our region. Through no fault of their own, they've had their visas knocked back, and over 19,000 people have signed a petition to have them stay in Australia. Minister, their case is now on your desk. Will you support this family in their quest to stay in Bathurst and Australia? 14:47 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I have some familiarity with the case. I don't know all the details of it, but, as I understand it, through no fault of their own, the person who was sponsoring them lost the right to sponsor, and there's a challenge there. I'd encourage the member to write—even today, straight after question time—directly to me with a representation. I'll work out, with the assistant minister, which of us will work with the department, and you'll be informed as to who it is. As to the issues you've raised, as I understand the case from what I've seen initially, the individuals concerned don't appear—at this stage, from the information I have—to be at fault in terms of the circumstances that have arisen. That doesn't mean that there aren't specific rules that simply can't be bent. That might be the case. But, as with all representations, if you make the representation, we'll get departmental advice and have a look at it for you. Medicare 57 14:48 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. After a decade of cuts and neglect, how is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare and bulk-billing? Are there any threats that would make it harder for Australians to see a bulk-billed doctor? 14:49 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. During the break we visited the urgent care clinic and new headspace service at Batemans Bay, as well as a terrific endometriosis clinic in Milton. I thank her for that. She is an absolutely terrific advocate for better health care, particularly in regional Australia. She knows that when we came to government general practice, in particular, was under huge pressure after this decade of cuts and neglect to Medicare, and bulk-billing in particular was in freefall. The member for Gilmore, along with the rest of the Labor team, promised to turn this around, and we've been busy delivering on that promise. This Treasurer has delivered the two biggest increases to the Medicare rebate in 30 years. In just two budgets, this Treasurer delivered a bigger increase to Medicare than those opposite managed in nine budgets. In addition, we've tripled the bulk-billing incentive for GP visits. In the member for Gilmore's electorate, for example, that's lifted the Medicare rebate paid to a GP for a standard consult by 50 per cent—by half. And, in the eight months since that record investment took effect, we've seen bulk-billing increase in every single state and territory. A system that under those opposite was in freefall has finally started to turn around. Since November, that has delivered an additional three million free visits to the doctor—900,000 in June alone and more than 900,000 in May alone. And the biggest increases to bulk-billing have been in regional and rural Australia. I'm pleased to report that in the member for Gilmore's electorate bulk-billing is up by more than five per cent in just eight months. Now, well over four out of every five GP visits in the member for Gilmore's electorate is fully bulk-billed, in no small effort due to her advocacy for better health care. Along with urgent care clinics and cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing is a crucial part of our plan to strengthen Medicare, to make it easier to see a doctor and to help Australians with the rising cost of health care. These measures are making a real difference to ordinary Australians, but we know it's still tough out there, and we know we need to do more. We're determined to do more, but we also know that this progress is under real threat from those opposite. The shadow Treasurer confirmed again this week he doesn't support our record investment in bulk-billing. As for the Leader of the Opposition, you just have to look at his record to get a hint of what he would do if he got his hands on Medicare again. He famously said that there were too many free Medicare services before he tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether and cut $50 billion from hospitals. No wonder Australia's doctors voted this man the worst health minister in the history of Medicare. Middle East: Migration 58 14:52 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, of the 2,900 people issued with visitor visas from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone, how many applicants have had their biometric data checked against Israeli government records on known Hamas members or sympathisers and those known or suspected to have participated in the 7 October terror attacks? The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Berowra, I'm just going to ask you to repeat the full question again. Mr LEESER 109556 My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, of the 2,900 people issued with visitor visas from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone, how many applicants have had their biometric data checked against Israeli government records on known Hamas members or sympathisers or those known or suspected to have participated in the 7 October terrorist attacks? 14:53 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked a question about Australia. I'm asked a question as well about Israel's database as well, which I certainly don't think I'm in a position to answer. It is a fact that one of the things that we don't do, as I said to a previous question, is go through all of the detail of our security arrangements, and the member would understand why that's the case. I don't think Israel does that either, by the way, just as a matter of fact. Let me just say this: I spoke before about Dr Mona Kaskeen. She has said, to quote her this morning in that interview, 'Whoever crosses the border into Egypt, they must not be a political person or from Hamas, because they're not allowed to cross the border.' That is what she had to say about her own experience. Let's be very clear about what has occurred here. The Leader of the Opposition went to welcome Olympians home, did an interview and once again made up a policy. It didn't go to shadow cabinet. It didn't go to their caucus—no process whatsoever, just like so many other issues that have occurred. The worst thing about that is that the Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should know also— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Berowra is on his feet, so I'll take his point of order Mr Leeser 109556 Mr Speaker, this is a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a question about processes by which the Australian government checks data against Israeli government records, not about announcements made by the Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER 53517 The issue I raised on Monday about 'compare and contrast' on policies still applies. The Prime Minister has been detailed about that. For the remainder of his answer, he won't be able to talk entirely about the opposition's policies, but he is able to—as former Speakers have determined—to compare and contrast policies, which he is doing. Mr ALBANESE R36 I answered the member for Berowra's question upfront already. We know that our security agencies do their jobs in a diligent way. The honourable member would know, as a former—at least—shadow Attorney-General—I don't know if he served on the national security committee or not, but he would know—about the arrangements that we have in place for security with other agencies. If he wants me to go down the track of talking about the arrangements that we have with our Five Eyes partners and with other governments, that is just an extraordinary thing for him to expect, frankly. What we do is we make sure that our priority is to keep Australians safe. I have confidence in our security agencies. I would hope that the member does as well. Cost of Living 58 14:56 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cost-of-living relief to Australians, and are there any threats to this relief being delivered? 14:56 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for Moreton for that question. Like the member for Moreton, every single member of the Albanese government is absolutely committed to delivering cost-of-living relief for every single Australian. We understand that people are under pressure, and that's why we are delivering responsible cost-of-living relief. Every Australian taxpayer is keeping more of what they earn because of Labor's tax cuts. We have frozen the cost of PBS medicines and $300 of energy bill relief is now rolling out. Eligible families with newborns are benefitting from an extra two weeks of paid parental leave, and we are continuing to freeze the social security deeming rates for another year so that pensioners can keep more money in their pockets. From 20 September, we will deliver an increase to the maximum rates of Commonwealth rental assistance by a further 10 per cent. On that same day, regular indexation will apply to rent assistance, pensioners and other payments to provide extra financial support. I've been asked if there are any threats to that relief. I would assume that indexation of pensions and other payments would be supported right across the House but, unfortunately, we've now found out that those opposite clearly do not support this. Just a few months ago the member for Hume went on the ABC and characterised this indexation arrangement as unrestrained spending that he was going to rein in. I thought maybe he didn't understand that he was proposing a cut to the pension. But this week we've seen that dynamic duo, the member for Hume and Senator Hume, double down on this criticism. It is now clear that the member for Hume, backed by Senator Hume, is opposing regular indexation increases. Of course, nobody should be surprised, because those opposite have form. When the Liberals were last in government, they made a lot of cuts. They cut the pension, they cut family payments, and now the member for Hume needs to come clean: if he is ever to be Treasurer, how much would he cut the pension? Of course, those opposite have nothing positive to offer. The Leader of the Opposition wants higher power prices, higher grocery prices, higher housing prices, higher taxes and lower wages, and now he wants to cut the pension. It is only Labor that can be trusted to get things done and deliver meaningful cost-of-living relief. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 59 14:59 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, a succession of federal governments—LNP and Labor—have a shameful history of paying lip service to the recommendations of royal commissions. Just look at the critical reaction to your government's response to the disability royal commission. And we're still waiting for a government—any government—to act on the Aboriginal deaths in custody royal commission. So, with the veterans royal commission report about to drop, will you commit to urgently implementing all of its recommendations? 15:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Of course, we haven't seen the recommendations of the royal commission, so it's a bit hard to comment specifically on them. But, of course, in the spirit of the royal commission, whose establishment we supported, we will give proper consideration to all of them, as, I'm sure, will other members of this parliament. Veteran suicide is indeed a national tragedy, and we are taking the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide extremely seriously, which is why we've been prepared to provide it with additional resources so that it could hear from more veterans. It's why we responded very quickly to the royal commission's interim report and why we have now taken action on each of the recommendations of that report. On every one of them we have taken action. One of the recommendations of the report was to fix the veteran compensation claims backlog. When we came to government, the Department of Veterans' Affairs was chronically underfunded and underresourced. The member for Calare, when he was the minister, made that very clear in critiquing his own government's budget, you might recall. In our very first budget, we funded 500 additional staff to get through that backlog. The backlog was eliminated a month before the deadline that had been set by the royal commission. Since we received the interim report, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has been working with the veteran community to deliver on the first recommendation of the royal commission's interim report: to simplify and harmonise veteran compensation legislation. The minister introduced that legislation into the parliament in July. We're committed to doing what it takes to improve outcomes for the Defence and veteran community, which is why we've established things like veterans hubs so that people can get all of those services at a one-stop shop. It is why we've included a component for veterans in the Housing Australia Future Fund as well. We thank every person who has contributed to the work of the royal commission, particularly those who've had the bravery to share their personal stories. It can be really tough for people to relive those things, but they have done that not just to help themselves but to help their fellow veterans and those who will come after them, and I pay tribute to them. We'll receive the report next month. My understanding is that we'll welcome the report. But we are already working—we're not waiting—to deliver a better future for Defence personnel, for veterans and, importantly, for their families as well. Aviation Industry 59 15:03 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What actions is the Albanese Labor government taking to support the continuation of regional flights through the Rex administration process? 15:03 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Lyons for the question. I know that he and every single regional MP who is in this place—and those senators in the other place who represent regional areas as well—know how important aviation is to regional Australia and also know that Rex plays a significant role in that. The announcement that Rex has gone into voluntary administration has, of course, caused uncertainty for regional communities that rely on their services. Since Rex went into voluntary administration, my department has been working closely with the administrators to assess the situation and the administrators' plans for the continuation of services in regional communities. As I've said from the outset of this process, we all want to see a strong future for regional aviation, and we are leaving all options on the table. To support the continuation of regional flights, the Australian government is guaranteeing regional flight bookings for Rex customers for tickets purchased after the administration period began. That means travellers can book regional flights on Rex throughout the voluntary administration process with confidence that they will either fly or get their money back. This is not a Commonwealth injection of funds into Rex or the administrators. It is a guarantee for bookings made after the airline entered into voluntary administration. The guarantee will be triggered only if a service is cancelled and where no alternative service has been delivered, and no refund. If the guarantee is triggered, affected customers will receive a refund directly from their credit card merchant or travel booking provider, backed by the government guarantee. Any drawdown of the guarantee is required to be repaid by the administrators. The guarantee applies to any Rex regional flight bookings made after Rex entered voluntary administration, from 9.31 pm on Tuesday 30 July 2024. This guarantee is about assuring customers and communities that they can and should continue booking regional flights with Rex—flights that allow them to stay connected with their families, their friends and their healthcare and other services while also helping to maintain regional aviation in Australia. It's a message very clearly to regional Australia: we know how important reliable air services are to you, and we are not going to allow your communities to be left behind. And to members of the public, this guarantee means you can continue to book Rex flights and should do so during the period of voluntary administration, and the guarantee allows some confidence about that. National Security 60 15:06 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese government, primarily under Minister Giles, has issued more than 2,900 visas to individuals from the Gaza war zone since the 7 October atrocity. Were all the individuals referred to ASIO for security checks? Or was it only where criteria were hit? 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question and I refer to my previous answers, where I indicated that we have in place appropriate arrangements to secure our national security and to keep people safe. That is what we do. The ASIO director-general has expressed his confidence in the system. That is something he did not just in the media conference we held but also on the 7.30 program and on the Insiders program. We work regularly and closely with our security agencies. We take their advice. If those opposite don't have confidence in the security agencies or in the director-general, they should say so. Local Government 60 15:08 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting local government? And how does this compare to other approaches? 15:08 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Macarthur for his question. He is a staunch advocate for the local government sector, many of whom I met with in his office, and I know he knows the value of good governance. Everyone in this place knows I'm a champion for local government. They are the closest level of government to our communities, and they provide so many vital services. On this side of the House we back that. We've brought them back to the table of the national cabinet. We've re-established the Council of Local Governments. And we've provided significant boosts in road funding, including progressively doubling Roads to Recovery. That's what happens when you have a Labor government. Local government is in every town, in every village, in every city, right across the country, and the best solutions are locally led, including the best candidates in local government. But yesterday we saw some shocking news. Across New South Wales, dozens of Liberal candidates no longer can run in the local council elections on 14 September—chaos, you might think! Well, that's what happens when you've got a New South Wales Liberal Party failing to do the one job they had, which was to lodge a form on time. Could you believe that? They had one job and they failed at it—unfathomable. And those opposite want us, want the Australian people, to believe they can run a country when they can't even lodge a form. They think the Australian people will fall for a nuclear plan. They're going to build them and run them, but they can't lodge a form! And what a shame it is for all of those local candidates who just wanted to represent their communities. As usual, we have seen the constant mismanagement that has become synonymous with those opposite. First it was colour coded spreadsheets. Then it was regional grants for the North Sydney pool. We heard yesterday that North Sydney cares for regional and rural Australia! Remember when the 'back in black' mugs came. They just missed the bit where they actually got the budget back in black—missed it by this much, I think it was! It's a pattern of chaos and mismanagement from those opposite. How can they run a country when they can't even get a nomination in? Can I make a suggestion just before I go? Maybe was into the formerly Liberal mayor of Lane Cove. He was asked by Kenny Heatley on Sky News: What does this say about the state of the Liberal Party if they can't even get their nomination forms in before the cut-off? Scott Bennison, the current Mayor of Lane Cove—well, he's about to be the former mayor because the Liberals didn't preselect him, and now he's running as an Independent—said, 'They probably shouldn't be in government. If they can't get their forms in, they shouldn't manage anything. If I could just make a suggestion: make sure you get your federal nominations in soon! Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Members on my right will cease clapping. Middle East: Migration 61 15:11 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it is reported that between 40 and 75 per cent of people in the Gaza war zone support listed terrorist organisations Hamas. Is it the government's policy that sympathy for Hamas is not grounds for visa refusal or cancellation? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No. Members on my right, I could not hear the question. The way this works is both sides—I'm just going to ask the member to repeat the question. I've got to hear the question so I can make decisions during the question, so the member for Hughes will start her question again. The members on my right will remain silent. Ms WARE 300123 My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it is reported that between 40 and 75 per cent of people in the Gaza war zone support listed terrorist organisation Hamas. Is it the government's policy that sympathy for Hamas is not grounds for visa refusal or cancellation? 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hughes for her question. I just say to the member for Hughes: I hope you have better pollsters than people who come to you and say 'somewhere between 40 and 75'! That is an extraordinary question to ask. I'm not sure, in seriousness, how you would poll Gaza at the moment. Do you have a TV? Have a look at what has happened to Gaza. The idea that there is polling going on in Gaza at the moment is just really—in order to make a point, in order to ask a question here. We have issues in this country of dealing with the global impact of inflation, cost-of-living pressures, housing and education. We had a report this week about NAPLAN and about students falling behind. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause, and I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI The question was: 'Is it the government's policy that sympathy for Hamas is not grounds for visa refusal or cancellation?' It was the question. The Prime Minister has got this— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. It's abuse of the point of order, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition wants to leave out the first half of the question when he's making that reference, but it was given, it was stated and it significantly broadens any concept of the relevance rule. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is being relevant, but the 40 to 75 per cent figure—I don't know where that figure has come from, and I'm not sure where the member for Hughes got that figure from, but obviously that's going to be contested, perhaps by the Prime Minister in his answer. There wasn't a source regarding where that figure was, so, obviously, the answer to the question is going to be quite broad. I'll make sure the Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about opinion polls in Gaza, and I was referring to— An opposition member: No you weren't! Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr ALBANESE R36 I absolutely was. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fairfax and the member for Hume are going to remain silent. Mr ALBANESE R36 The fact is that what Australians are concerned about at the moment is education, health, cost of living—all of those things that those opposite have refused to raise this week. What they also don't want to see, as Director-General Burgess has warned, is the social division that we have been warned about. They want to see the temperature taken down in this debate—the temperature right across the board. Australia is not a direct participant in this conflict, no matter how much some people in political life try to put us at the centre of it. That is something that those opposite have, from time to time, said they agree with when they're critical of minor parties. The reason why I have been critical of those minor parties is that some of that conduct has been divisive, but so too is the sort of division and the attempts that we've seen since the Olympic welcome home ceremony by those opposite. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 62 15:17 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why is it important that we continue the rollout of renewable energy backed up by batteries? What obstacles stand in the way, and what policies has the government rejected? 15:18 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon It's important we keep going with the plan to rollout renewables backed by batteries because that's what the experts tell us is the least costly way to transition out our energy system: renewables backed by batteries, backed by gas peaking, backed by storage and transmission. That's what the experts say. Those opposite have a different view. I'm pleased to tell the member for Corangamite and the House that in the first seven months of this year 2.8 gigawatts worth of big batteries have begun construction. That's as big as our largest coal-fired power station, backing up renewable energy and backing up with storage. Yesterday, the energy company AGL announced investments in batteries of up to eight gigawatts. That's eight gigawatts of investment in batteries by AGL. AGL also said yesterday, in response to questions: 'Nuclear is not part of our plans, nor our strategy … we cannot sit around and wait for nuclear … The rationale for that is both cost and time to get there.' That's important because AGL owns the Liddell site, where those opposite want to put a nuclear power station. The landlord says no. Their policy has failed at the first hurdle. All we've seen from the opposition is the announcement of seven sites. We've seen no further detail. But, as the House knows, I always want to be fair to those opposite, and a couple of weeks ago we did start to see details. The member for Fairfax, the shadow minister, had a big speech coming up. He told the Australian and the headline was, 'Ted O'Brien sets out long-term plan for uranium-enrichment industry'. There were lots of quotes in the article about what he would say at his speech in Adelaide later the next day. I've read the speech and watched it. Someone had to. Not many people do, but I do. I'm sorry to tell the House, none of the quotes that the member for Fairfax told the Australian appeared in the actual speech, which I table for the House. It was an announcement with a very short half-life. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B The rules on props are very well-known. The minister is cynically flouting the rules, and he should be brought back to compliance with the standing orders. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, when a minister is tabling the document you have to hold the document up to be able to table it. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, but the minister was also waving it around beforehand. To assist the House, you don't need to wave it around. You need to simply table it, which does not mean the waving of a document. I thank the manager. Mr BOWEN DZS I also tabled the speech by the honourable member, which contained none of the quotes. It was such a long-term plan it didn't even make the speech. I'm not sure what happened. It's possible the member for Fairfax told the Australian before he told the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition didn't approve the announcement of a uranium enrichment industry for Australia. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition pulled the rug out from under the member of Fairfax. We wouldn't know. We do know that those opposite couldn't organise a barbecue at Bunnings. They say they're going to rollout reactors; they can't even rollout candidates for local government. They say they're going to have nuclear reactors by a deadline of 2035; they couldn't even meet a deadline of 12 o'clock on Tuesday. This is the alternative government of Australia, who say they have an energy plan for Australia, and what they have is a complete mess which doesn't survive contact with reality. That's why the Leader of the Opposition is so risky for our country. Middle East: Migration 62 15:21 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden My question is to the Prime Minister. The Department of Home Affairs told Senate estimates on 28 May that, as of 31 March 2024, 39 visitor visas from individuals from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone were cancelled, but 12 of those cancellation decisions were later revoked. Prime Minister, as of today, how many visas for individuals from the Gaza war zone have been cancelled since 7 October, and were any of the visas cancelled following additional security checks? 15:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler We, of course, take the same advice from the same security agencies, even the same security personnel, as the former government did. We have confidence in our security and law enforcement agencies to do their job. One of the things they do is do it on an ongoing basis. We don't discuss all of the methods that our agencies use to determine if someone is a national security risk, for obvious reasons. We encourage the director-general of ASIO to directly engage so as to depoliticise these issues. That's why the director-general of ASIO goes onto TV—not because it's something that is in his wish list of wanting to tick off but because it's the right thing to do because it is consistent with his view about the need to lower the temperature in this country. If those opposite think that the circumstances are that we don't need to lower the temperature then they can continue down this cul-de-sac, but I've got to say that we want to ensure the security of our nation is prioritised—not a news grab, not a headline, the security of our nation. We've seen the form in this before: the criticism of Malcolm Fraser for making what was called a mistake in bringing Lebanese refugees to Australia in response to the 1976 Lebanese Civil War, the claim that Victorians were scared to go out due to African gang violence and incorrectly blaming the death of a teenager on such gangs in a bid to score a point, the cruel war against the Biloela family and comparing their children to anchor babies, the catching of a senior member of the then government on a hot mic making jokes about Pacific nations facing rising sea levels. There were the comments during the last election suggesting that the now defence minister was the choice of China. Mr Fletcher L6B I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a tight question about the number of visas for individuals from the Gaza war zone that have been cancelled since 7 October. He should answer that. He has equivocated and failed to do that. If he has nothing more to say, he should sit down. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There's no commentary needed when someone approaches the dispatch box on either side. The Deputy Leader of the House on the point of order? Mr Butler HWK The Manager of Opposition Business continues to raises this point of order because he's something of a serial offender on this. It is quite clear in the standing orders and in Practice that a minister and certainly the Prime Minister has the right to compare and contrast. He has answered the question. What he is doing now is comparing and contrasting. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has 19 seconds remaining for his answer, and he shall remain directly relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 It is important to have context. The context is that this bloke has 20 years of form. Energy 63 15:26 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the government's Future Made in Australia plan accelerating the approval of renewable energy projects? How will these projects make energy cleaner and cheaper for all Australians, and what approaches has the government ruled out and why? 15:26 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. I know that he and his constituents are huge supporters of the transition to renewable energy in this country and of a future made in Australia. The energy transition is real. It's happening right now. You see it in the 25 per cent increase in renewable energy in our electricity grid. You see it in the faster approvals for renewable energy projects and the cheaper, cleaner energy entering our grid. You see it in the 55 projects that we have ticked off so far and the three million homes that will be supported with that cleaner, cheaper renewable energy. You see it in the 136 projects that are in the pipeline. I'll mention just a couple that I have ticked off recently. There's the Palmer Wind Farm in South Australia, enough to power 144,000 homes. That project is the right project in the right place. It took just nine weeks for that kick-off to come through. There's the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone, enough to power 1.8 million homes. It will have 5,000 jobs during peak construction. That renewable energy future is being built right now. In the meanwhile—right now, immediately—we are offering $300 in energy bill relief for Australian households and $350 for small businesses. What is the contrast? The contrast from those opposite was nine years of delay and inaction. It was nine years of denial. They were told 24 coal-fired power stations were closing on their watch. Where was the plan for the replacement electricity generation? Where was the plan for the workers? And, now, what is their plan for electricity? Their plan is to spend $600 billion of taxpayers' money that could be spent on hospitals, roads and schools. No, they are going to spend that on nuclear reactors so we can have electricity in 20 years time. Their plan for cheaper energy now will deliver in 20 years time. What you have as a contrast between those opposite and those on this side is a nine-year go-slow versus nine-week approvals. By the way, if those opposite want to see more faster approvals for housing, critical minerals and all of those things that we need to see to create jobs and wealth in this country then they should be backing our environmental law reforms in the Senate. They'll mean better protections for nature and faster, clearer decisions for business. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 64 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 64 15:30 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I have a question about some conduct of the Leader of the Opposition during question time. After the Prime Minister had given an answer to one of his questions, I think, wherein the Prime Minister quoted certain remarks from the ASIO director-general, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and then just proceeded to read a whole range of additional quotes from an interview that the director-general had given. There are obviously, within the standing orders, a range of opportunities for the Leader of the Opposition to take a different view about quotes that the director-general may or may not have said. He could do a follow-up question, he could do a substantive motion, which he realised a little later in question time, or he could do a number of other things. But I ask you: is there any basis on which the Leader of the Opposition was in order to simply stand up after the Prime Minister had given an answer and read from a document, the origins of which are unknown? 15:31 The SPEAKER 53517 Moving forward, just so that everyone is clear, if there is a claim of misleading or if there is some disagreement, the first opportunity to raise that would be at the time when someone is making a statement. Subsequent to that, if someone believes there is an inconsistency, the only form to do that is by a substantive motion, perhaps by putting it on notice or moving a further action. Through question time, no-one has any opportunities to be able to simply rise and say, 'I don't think that person is accurate,' and read other things. There are other forms of the House to do that. Parliamentary Standards 64 15:32 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Earlier in question time the member for Warringah rose on a point of order. She claimed that, at a specific time in question time, the member for Macnamara sought the call before the Leader of the Opposition rose. I just ask you to review the footage and advise the House accordingly as to whether her claim was correct. If it's the case that the member for Warringah was incorrect, your review will provide her the first available opportunity to correct a misleading of the House. 15:33 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall review the situation and advise the member accordingly. STATEMENTS 64 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 64 15:33 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DUTTON 00AKI Absolutely, Mr Speaker, in the most offensive way. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr DUTTON 00AKI During the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the House earlier, he made the suggestion that I had provided a quote during question time which was inaccurate or the origin of which was unknown. That is completely and utterly false. The quote that I read during question time was a direct and accurate quote of the director-general of ASIO. It was in contrast to the Prime Minister's quoting of the director-general of ASIO, where he deliberately omitted words which had a very significant impact on the statement from the director-general of ASIO. It's also worth pointing out that we moved the suspension on a very serious allegation against the Prime Minister that he deliberately misled this House. They spoke out question time to 3.30 so this wouldn't be brought on, which shows how gutless this Prime Minister is. Mr Dreyfus HWG And you're a disgrace! The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will cease interjecting. Under the standing orders, the Leader of the Opposition or any member is entitled to explain where they have been misrepresented. The end part of that was not necessarily part of that process. The member for Flynn has been patient in asking for a personal explanation. 15:34 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the member claimed to be misrepresented? Mr BOYCE 299498 Most grievously. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr BOYCE 299498 During question time today the Hon. Minister for Resources said, 'unlike the member for Flynn, the PM and I have visited the Alpha HPA facility'. This is incorrect. In fact, on 22 March 2022, I was at the site with the then minister for industry, the member for Hume, the Hon. Angus Taylor. There are photographs of us at the site. Furthermore, on 22 April 2022, then minister for resources, the member for Hinkler, the Hon. Keith Pitt, announced funding of $15.5 million to the Alpha HPA facility. So, I would ask that the honourable member withdraw her statement and correct the record. The SPEAKER 53517 We shall move to the matter of public importance. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 65 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE National Security, Economy, Cost of Living 65 15:36 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This government's incompetence and inability to keep Australians safe and keep inflation and costs of living under control I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:36 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson It is a very important day in the history of this parliament because the prime minister of our country has come into the parliament and has deliberately misled this parliament. That is the most serious allegation that can be made against a prime minister or, indeed, against a member or senator in this House or in the other place. I cannot recall a time in recent history were such a claim has been made against a member with the evidence so clear in relation to this matter. It is clear that the government has taken steps to avoid a debate. It is obvious now, with the Prime Minister leaving the chamber, that he is not prepared to defend his own position—again something without precedent in my 20-odd years in this parliament. Normally, you would expect a prime minister to stand up and defend himself or herself, to correct the record if, indeed, there had been an inadvertent misleading of the House. But this Prime Minister went on, question after question in his responses to those questions, perpetrating his misleading of this house. This is a very serious— The SPEAKER 53517 I understand the Leader of the Opposition said the Prime Minister had deliberately misled— Mr DUTTON 00AKI Yes. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask you to withdraw that as it is against the standing orders, as every other member has done over time. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I'm making reference to the process that went on today, which is exactly what I said in the House in my motion, where I said: 'considers that this constitutes a deliberate misleading of the House'. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand the cause of the issue. It's the statement which has been made. All members since Federation—and Practice dictates that statement is unparliamentary. To assist the House and let the debate continue, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I withdraw on the basis that the Prime Minister refuses to be here. It is difficult, particularly when the government has taken a decision to use parliamentary process not to debate the matter, which I think reflects very poorly on this Prime Minister. It's a sobering day when the Prime Minister can't be here to defend himself against an allegation in my motion today, which I moved during the course of question time. I quote from that motion: '(c) considers that this constitute a deliberate misleading of the House.' It's a very serious allegation. What's the basis here? We're talking about the issue of national security. We have a situation where on 7 October there was an attack of the most serious nature in Israel where 1,200 people were slaughtered. One hundred people are still held hostage in a tunnel network, and we know that the atrocities that Hamas committed don't stop there, because they're hiding weapons within the population, under hospitals, in places of worship and in places of gathering, including residential areas, to this very day. They have no regard for the Israelis, but they have less regard for Palestinians. On 9 October, in our country there was a protest on the steps of the opera house where the antisemitism that we're seeing almost as common practice today was first highlighted and emphasised with that unruly crowd. It's important to recite that part of this story because the Prime Minister, from that very first moment, that very first test of his leadership, decided not to condemn those actions and not to condemn those blatant, obvious and transparent acts of antisemitism. And what has happened between 9 October and today? We've seen a level of antisemitism in our country that has never been witnessed. We have people who were in the Holocaust as survivors from the camps who shifted here post 1945, and, for the first time in our country's history and in their new lives here in our country, they say that they feel unsafe—in our country! How could that be? How could it be that people who have contributed to our country and have been peaceful in their presence here, who have educated their children and have worked hard and contributed to the fabric of our society—how could they be made to feel unsafe to the point where they're talking about wanting to return to Israel, a country under attack? It's because of this weak Prime Minister. This Prime Minister had the opportunity on 9 October. We've seen the protests on the university campuses go on for weeks and weeks. We've seen the response on the streets of Melbourne and Sydney and Brisbane and elsewhere around the country. We've seen the blatant acts of antisemitism, of driving them from the river to the sea, talking about annihilating, wiping out and exterminating—exactly the same language that Hitler used in the 1930s. This Prime Minister goes missing in action, and he has the audacity to stand up today to say to us that we should heed the advice from the director-general of ASIO that we need to lower the temperature of debate in this country. This Prime Minister's negligence, this Prime Minister's weakness, has given rise to a level of antisemitism in our country that is without precedent and should be condemned but which escapes his capacity to do, and this is a most egregious abrogation of his responsibility. What is the latest manifestation of this Prime Minister's incompetent period in office? It's not just the cost of living. It's not just in relation to the way in which they have gone about destroying parts of our economy. That is a very worthy discussion within this parliament, but today we condemn this Prime Minister for the work that he has done to undermine our national security agencies and the work that he has done, the decisions he's taken and the decisions that he hasn't taken which have resulted in an undermining of the security settings in our country. He was in here yesterday, and he said, 'Well, look, there's nothing to see here because we brought in or we issued visas for 2,900 people, and 1,300 people have come in'—from a war zone controlled by Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation. Can you imagine if John Howard or Kim Beazley or Paul Keating as leaders of parties had advocated bringing in people with affiliations or sympathies to Hamas or to Hizballah or to al-Qaeda or to ISIS or to ISIL? They would have been rightly condemned. Yet this Prime Minister has changed the settings for our security agencies such that they now allow people to come into our country who have sympathies for an organisation listed by this parliament as an organisation of terror. This Prime Minister is now saying that the bar has been lowered so low that people can come in who have sympathies to the acts that we've spoken about on 7 October, where women were beheaded, people were slaughtered and pregnant women were run down in the streets and the fields, and this Prime Minister says that that's okay. And he comes into this parliament yesterday and tries to say that every person who has come here of the 1,300—on tourist visas, which is without precedent—who hadn't been interviewed face to face and who hadn't been properly screened would be tested and checked by ASIO. That is not true. He misled the parliament. As I said in my motion earlier today, 'it considers that this constitutes a deliberate misleading of the House.' That is the quote from my— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Leader of the Opposition has been warned— Mr DUTTON 00AKI I am quoting from an earlier motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 It being a quote doesn't actually make it any better. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I withdraw if it helps the process. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I appreciate that. Thank you for the withdrawal. That was my request. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I think the problem here is that we've now got the Prime Minister coming in here today quoting from Mike Burgess, the director-general of ASIO. In a quote, you can perhaps not quote the first sentence but quote sentences two, three and four and omit sentence five. You can accurately quote somebody in that fashion. But that is not what has happened here. The Prime Minister has come in today and deliberately twisted the words of the director-general of ASIO—one of the most serious allegations to be made against a prime minister. That is exactly what he did to suit his mistake from yesterday. This means that the Prime Minister is at odds with the director-general of ASIO. The Prime Minister has deliberately and selectively quoted the director-general of ASIO, omitting operative words to suit the Prime Minister's narrative from yesterday and justify his misleading the House, but it is clearly inaccurate and twists the words into a different meaning not meant to be delivered by the director-general of ASIO. This is a prime minister who can't be trusted. He's making Australia less safe and he should be voted out at the next election. 15:46 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The Australian people will be very disappointed with the attempts to divide rather than bring people together in the speech that we just saw. What the Australian people know and what the Leader of the Opposition himself knows is that this government condemns antisemitism and this government seeks to bring Australians together, recognising that we are stronger because we are a multicultural community where there is mutual respect. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He can't look at me right now, because he knows what I am saying is true. You keep looking at your phone, Leader of the Opposition. Social cohesion is a responsibility that we all share. I take that responsibility seriously. Those on this side take that responsibility seriously. Actually, it's in our national interest that we all take that responsibility seriously. As the Prime Minister outlined in question time for question after question today, we take advice from the same security agencies that those opposite did. We follow the same processes that those opposite followed and, indeed, have the same personnel. Beyond that, this government has proudly and happily invested in efforts to boost our social cohesion explicitly to address antisemitism in this country. There is no place for it, and we will take that work and that responsibility seriously. As the Leader of the Opposition himself knows, there is $25 million in security funding to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry in response to the Jewish community's explicit security needs. We saw $10 million in further support to securing the faith based places grants program, improving security at religious schools—again, something the Leader of the Opposition knows himself that we did and something that is on top of the funding that has already been delivered. We've seen funding to the Department of Education to help support states and territories with delivering mental health and wellbeing support to students at Jewish and Islamic schools. We've seen the Department of Health provide $3 million of funding for mental health and community wellbeing. We've seen funding to the Australian Human Rights Commission for targeted communications to increase awareness about combating racism and hate—again, a responsibility we all share. And we've seen the appointment of a special envoy to prevent antisemitism and to advise government. I also note my good colleague here at the table, the member for Bruce, is also doing excellent work making sure that we do everything we can to bring people together. I did notice that, when the Leader of the Opposition put his MPI in, he said he was going to talk about the cost of living, but instead we just saw a dummy-spit because he couldn't debate his motion, because he stood up at the wrong time. He didn't choose to debate the very MPI that he himself introduced. The Leader of the Opposition this morning wanted to talk about cost of living, and this afternoon he didn't. It's a bit like how, when he's on the east coast, he says that he doesn't support production tax credits for Western Australia's critical minerals industry and, when he gets over to Western Australia, he spends five days there and says that he does. There are different stories in the morning and in the afternoon. There are different stories on the east coast and on the west coast. This Leader of the Opposition mentioned, in his remarks just then, 'gutlessness'. Well, I'll tell you what's gutless, Leader of the Opposition: not going to Collie, where you plan to build a nuclear power plant. You spent five days in Western Australia— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Assistant Minister, I'm just going to remind you to direct your comments through the chair. I do not want personal attacks across the dispatch box. Members might want to consider their interjections. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm looking straight at you, Member for O'Connor. No more interjections. Mr GORMAN 74519 That is very correct, Deputy Speaker, because the entire nation should know that this Leader of the Opposition didn't visit Collie when he spent five days in Western Australia, maybe because he thought he had to go up to Collie when in fact it's down, south of Perth. He would know that if he had driven there. But I agree that it is important that every Australian know that and it's important that we discuss that in this parliament. If any mining executive in Western Australia did what the Leader of the Opposition has done, which is to put out a completely uncosted, un-fact-checked plan around nuclear energy, they would be sacked by the end of the day. You couldn't hold that standard to the ASX. But what we have here with the Leader of the Opposition is that now, two months on, we have seen no costings, no economic modelling, no job projections, nothing on the cost of electricity, and no plan on how to fund it. Is it going to be debt funded, is it going to be funded by jacking up people's power bills, are you going to jack up taxes or are you going to make cuts? Again, we don't know how they're going to fund their signature—in fact, their only—policy. It's reasonable that people would ask those questions, and it's reasonable that people would expect that, if this Leader of the Opposition puts himself forward as an alternative leader of Australia, he would have some of those plans. Opposition members interjecting— Mr GORMAN 74519 We see—and I hear it now—lots of anger coming from those opposite. They have no costed policies. We have lots of campaigning in Western Australia, but there was no time to get to Collie. There are lots of complaints about this government, but they will never vote for action on anything, including HECS. We even struggled on getting them to agree to clean up the CFMEU today. They are an endlessly petty opposition who spend more time on the side of John Setka than on the side of the Australian people. We see endless negativity—all problems, no solutions. The Leader of the Opposition couldn't even bring himself, when he was there welcoming our Olympians back, to have an entire hour where we could just share in the joy of some of our outstanding Olympians. He had to politicise it. He chose that moment—a deliberate choice, a captain's call, a policy that he himself set. The Leader of the Opposition and his deputy are so angry that they're angry that others aren't angry. I saw in the Australian today a report that they're so angry that they want small businesses to be angry. Small businesses just want to run a business. They just want to make sure they can employ people and serve the Australian people. But the opposition want small businesses to share their anger, so we've seen the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say that she wants small businesses to be more angry and more political. Again, small businesses just want to get on with their business. I would ask something of all those in the coalition. There are a few more of them speaking on this MPI. Maybe one of them will tell us where their cost-of-living plan is. We know what you oppose: you oppose cheaper child care, you oppose fee-free TAFE and you want to cut the pension. We saw that from the shadow Treasurer last week. But they won't tell us what their plans are. I note that this MPI talks about safety for Australians. Let's be clear: when this Leader of the Opposition sat at the cabinet table, he was responsible for a range of foreign policy failures, but he was also responsible for messes that led to this government having to commission three separate reviews: the Richardson review, the Parkinson review—that's the hefty one—and the Nixon review. They told us that the incompetence of the Leader of the Opposition led to a completely rorted visa system. They told us that, under this Leader of the Opposition's watch, they had created and encouraged, within the Home Affairs portfolio, the toxic, demoralising culture—the same as what we saw through robodebt. This government has been left to clean up the mess left by the Leader of the Opposition. He left the borders wide open. He left communities less safe. He left systemic failures in our visa system. This Leader of the Opposition says, 'I'll open the door for more organised crime.' He opened the door for the Albanian mafia to infiltrate the country. Don't take it from me. Here's what Christine Nixon, the former Victorian Police Commissioner, had to say in the forward to her report—and I dare you to check this quote, Leader of the Opposition; if you want to have a debate about checking quotes, check this quote. This is the quote that I encourage you and all members, including the Leader of Opposition, to check: I have been appalled by the abuses of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime that have been presented to me … That's Christine Nixon talking about the Department of Home Affairs under the watch of the Leader of the Opposition. I encourage all members, including the Leader of the Opposition, to check this quote: During the consultation phase of this review, it was raised that visa fraud was a common theme in many major investigations over the last five to 10 years relating to gangs, drug cartels, and casino money laundering. Further, there was another quote: Australia's visa system must be strengthened to resist organised crime syndicates, to ensure they don't prey upon Australia as an easy destination to conduct their exploitative and criminal business, and to protect those who are most vulnerable. What was the Leader of the Opposition's response to all this? He cut combined staffing by 50 per cent. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Before I give the call to the Member for Wannon, I accept it's Thursday afternoon. If people want an early mark, you will be getting one very shortly because I'm very tired of the interjections. I hope you show a bit of respect to somebody on your own side during this debate now. 15:57 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It's worth reminding the House what we're talking about here. There is no precedent in Australian history for bringing 1,300 people from the terrorist-controlled territory into this country on tourist visas, so something has happened that is absolutely unprecedented—1,300 people have been brought into this country from the terrorist controlled territory on tourist visas. As a responsible opposition, we first have to ensure that the government is doing its No. 1 priority: keeping the Australian people safe. Its No. 1 duty is keeping the Australian people safe. That is the question we've asked the Prime Minister: are you keeping the Australian people safe? The sad reality is that, both yesterday and today, the Prime Minister hasn't been truthful with the Australian people in answering those questions. And today he stooped to a new low. He sought to quote the director-general of ASIO to suit his purpose of misleading the Australian people. This is unprecedented. I cannot think of any time ever before in this place where a prime minister has sought to misquote the director-general of ASIO so that it suits his purpose for having misled the Australian people. Let's go to the facts. On Insiders, David Speers asked the director-general this question: 'Sorry, those from Gaza who have come here have gone through the very standard checks.' Mike Burgess said: If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process. This is the important part: Part of that visa process is where criteria are hit. They're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing. What did the Prime Minister say in question time when he was quoting the director-general of ASIO—not some individual but the person whose responsibility it is to keep us safe? This is what the Prime Minister said in question time: If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing. Mr Pasin 240756 There's something missing. What's missing? There's something missing in the middle. Mr TEHAN 210911 There is something missing, and do you reckon that's the operative bit? Do you think it bells the cat on how the Prime Minister has misled the Australian people? Yes, it does. It bells the cat. The Prime Minister should have the decency to come back into this place and admit he got it wrong. He should have the decency to do it because he has misquoted Mike Burgess, the director-general of ASIO—someone who has spent his lifetime trying to do his absolute best to keep the Australian community safe. If the Prime Minister hasn't got the decency to do that, then I think the standards that he is setting for this parliament are beyond the pale. We know he's happy to let his former immigration minister, who was responsible for the decisions to bring these people in on a tourist visa, to misquote him in this place and make sure that the Australian people are given false pretences about the processes that he followed when he released detainees into the community—many of them hardened criminals, murderers and child six offenders. We know he's happy to wave that by, but now he's happy to do it himself. It is an absolute disgrace. If he's half decent, he will come in here and admit he got it wrong when it came to quoting the director-general of ASIO to suit his own purposes because he knows decisions have been made that potentially threaten the safety of the Australian people. (Time expired) 16:02 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Those listening will maybe take some comfort from the fact that I'm not going to scream, carry on or confect this outrage, which is an attempt to cover up the fact that they're not actually talking about the cost of living at all, which is part of the MPI. The fact of the matter is that there's good reason for that—because their leader, their deputy leader and their shadow Treasurer keep talking about ripping billions of dollars out of the budget that goes towards seniors and their pensions—the indexation of those, appropriately, to help with the cost of living and many other things. But I'll get to the veterans and the other elements that they want to rip out from what the Australian government gives in support of the Australian people, not only for their service, when it comes to veterans, but also because of the fact that many age pensioners, of course, have been paying tax all their lives and it's only proper that we give our senior Australians the support that they need to live decent lives. Our government is of course managing the economy competently. What evidence do I have for that? Well, we've had two budget surpluses. In nine years, they couldn't pull one. They also racked up $1 trillion of debt. That's relevant. We have halved the inflation, and I think those listening outside of this bubble might have missed that—that those opposite, the coalition, left us with inflation that was at more than six per cent. We have halved that, and we're continuing to put downward pressure on inflation, whilst also assisting Australians with the cost of living. We're also creating tens of thousands of full-time jobs, and, as the Treasurer said in question time, no government, no Prime Minister, has ever created so many jobs in their first term. So, that's what we're doing. But, again: what are those opposite planning to do? Well, we know, because the Leader of the Opposition, his deputy and the shadow Treasurer keep talking about ripping out the responsible budget measures where we put significant funding—over $300 billion—into the budget to look after Australians. Now, what is that funding about? Let's just talk about veterans for a minute. Those opposite, the coalition, like to think they're good economic managers, but I've just pointed out a couple of reasons they're not. They also like to point out that they're for veterans. But they fought the establishment of a royal commission into defence and veterans' suicide all the way. There had to be a grassroots campaign, led by the mothers and the veterans themselves, backed by our leader, the now Prime Minister, to get that royal commission established. That's one thing. They also left us with about 42,000 uncleared claims in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The royal commission itself has said that that massive backlog of claims was indeed causing harm and in all likelihood led to the suicides of veterans. That's shameful. So, what we've done is put a lot more resources into clearing that backlog of claims, so that Australian veterans and their families are getting the funding they so richly deserve. That comes with a price tag. Those funds are within the extra funding allocated through the budget in a responsible and budgeted way that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about withdrawing, as well as the deputy leader and the shadow Treasurer. They are talking about ripping that funding out of the budget. Those opposite might remember that the member for Calare, when he was the coalition's Minister for Veterans' Affairs, tried to plead with and then threatened his own political party that he would resign from that post if further funding wasn't put into DVA. But those opposite, the coalition, did not do it. It took a Labor federal government and this Labor Prime Minister to put the funds into the budget, and those opposite are talking about ripping those funds out. 16:07 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I listened closely to the contribution of the member for Solomon, and I thank him for his service; I thank him for being a veteran. Veterans should be lauded and applauded for the fact that they have kept our country safe. So, for his efforts, and for the efforts of the member for Pearce and the member for Braddon, I thank them for their service, and all other members in this place. The topic of today's matter of public importance discussion is this incompetent government's inability to keep Australians safe and to keep inflation under control, moved by the member for Dixon. I would ask: do Australians feel safer now than they did prior to May 2022? Do Australians feel poorer now than they did prior to 2022? I think there would be resounding answers to both of those questions. Today in question time I asked the Prime Minister about the 2,900 people from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone who were issued visas, primarily led in by the former immigration minister, the member for Scullin. The primary word in the question—which was whether all of them have been subjected to a biometric test and an in-person interview—was 'all'. He came up with a good example of one of those people who have come into Australia and contributed greatly to our nation. And we thank our migrants for what they do. But the fact remains that Australians do not feel safer, because this government is allowing into this country people who have not had the in-person interviews or the biometric testing. That is of great concern, particularly given research and evidence from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research report of June this year, from Dr Khalil Shikaki, who is their director and was interviewed on ABC Radio, who said: For the third time since October 7, we asked the respondents in this poll what they thought of Hamas' decision to launch the October the 7th offensive. Two thirds, compared to 71% in March 2024 and 72% in December 2023, say it was correct. … … … … almost all Palestinians (97%) think Israel has committed war crimes during the current war … 88% think Hamas did not commit war crimes during the current war. … … … When asked who the public would prefer to control the Gaza Strip after the war, 61% (71% in the West Bank and 46% in the Gaza Strip) said it was Hamas. That is disturbing. By any measure, that is alarming. The respondents to the poll are living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They are right there on the ground, witnessing and suffering from this conflict. While they rightfully deserve sympathy, humanitarian aid and efforts to bring an end to the violence, what deeply concerns me and, moreover, many, many Australians is just how many of the respondents condone Hamas and its attacks on Israel. It's not just in capital cities; it's right throughout Australia. It's in regional Australia. It's in Wagga Wagga, where we have a group of Greens who are protesting outside my office every Sunday under the guise of Sundays for Peace. It's quite a misnomer for the organisation. They are marching in the streets. They are putting things on Facebook which are beyond belief. Then we have the Prime Minister, who selectively quotes the Director-General of Security in charge of ASIO, Mike Burgess, someone who is beyond reproach and someone who has been doing an outstanding job since 2019 and does not deserve to be selectively quoted. He should be quoted in his entirety. He should be quoted to the fullest. What we are seeing in this country is social disruption. It is not cohesion. We are genuinely concerned that people who are coming in are not having the proper testing of their validity and that what we will be seeing in the future as a result of that is unrest. What we saw on 9 October on the steps of the Opera House and elsewhere throughout this nation since those revolting, disgraceful attacks on 7 October was social unrest in our country. We are a free and democratic country. We welcome migrants who want to do the right thing by our nation, but Hamas is a terrorist organisation. What the Greens have done and what indecisiveness by the Labor government has done is make sure that we'll disgracefully allow future unrest to occur. (Time expired) 16:12 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck This MPI is evidence that the Liberal and National parties have simply given up. Now they don't even know what they want to discuss in parliament. I wait with bated breath to see if maybe next week they'll put three topics into their MPI. The member for Dickson shows a certain level of indecision in his effort to chuck a few things around and see if something might just stick. The trouble is that there's no good news for the coalition. Their strategy of just opposing everything may have worked for Tony Abbott, but it's not going to work for the member for Dickson. On the other hand, these two MPI topics provide me with a platform to outline in my brief five minutes a few of the excellent initiatives of the Albanese Labor government that we have already done, in just a two short years, to make Australians safer and to address the cost-of-living challenges facing Australians, especially those Australians who need help the most. Firstly, the Australian government hit the ground running on national security. In August 2022, the Hon. Stephen Smith and Sir Angus Houston were asked to conduct the Defence strategic review, the most important work of that kind since the Dibb report in 1986. That review underpins the ongoing agenda for an ambitious but necessary reform to defence posture and structure. This makes Australia safer. The House recently passed the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. That committee will ensure proper oversight of defence strategy and provision in the years ahead. I acknowledge the work of the late senator Jim Molan. The defence committee, if the Liberals will actually pass the bill in the Senate, will help keep Australia safer. In cybersecurity, the Albanese Labor government has elevated the portfolio to cabinet. When the opposition were in power they weren't even sure whether it was important enough to have a portfolio for it. Cybersecurity threats are many and varied, and the government's efforts have already made Australians safer. But we need to ask, since the coalition were in office for nine years and pretend to care about national security and making Australians safer: Where was the coalition's defence strategic review? Where was the coalition's legislation for the joint committee on defence? Where were the coalition ministers for cybersecurity and a national office a cybersecurity? Nada—they didn't exist. Instead, chasing headlines, we saw the Leader of the Opposition try to claim that Border Force were underfunded. Then Australian Border Force commissioner, Michael Outram, confirmed that under Labor funding for the agency is the highest it has been since its establishment in 2015. It must be difficult for the Leader of the Opposition as, every time the member for Dickson stands up to dog whistle, the facts simply don't support him. It is simply not possible to cover all the great initiatives and support on cost of living by the Albanese government, so I'll cover just a few. I think it is worth pointing out at the same time just how little would have been done in this area if the coalition were in government at this crucial time. We have provided tax cuts for every Australian. A Border Force police officer recruit trainee just starting out on $54,439 will receive a tax cut of $1,040, and that's ongoing. That trainee, who's going to be helping to keep our country safe, hopefully over a long and rewarding career, certainly deserves to have the benefit of that tax cut. But how much of a tax cut would the Border Force officer recruit trainee have received if the coalition were in office? Nothing—nil. We know this because, even though the opposition knew that they couldn't, in the end, oppose the tax cuts, they truly, in their hearts, wanted to oppose them. They would never in a million years have thought of it on their own—tax cuts for all Australians, especially for those who need it most, to address their cost-of-living challenges. It's a sensible policy because the Albanese government wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. It's a sensible policy because when circumstances change government policy should change too. It's a sensible policy that the member for Dickson would never have supported if he thought he had any choice at all. Our Border Force officer recruit trainee will also benefit from the government's action in addressing health needs and health costs. There's more support for bulk-billing, free medical urgent care clinics, capping the cost of scripts and 60-day dispensing, all designed to make Australians healthier while, at the same time, saving them money. Would a coalition government have taken any of these measures? No. Indeed, the Abbott government shut Medicare locals.The Morrison government ignored the advice to allow 60-day scripts. The coalition, quite demonstrably, does not care about the health of Australians and won't assist in meeting healthcare costs. Ms Roberts 157125 Shame. Ms LAWRENCE 299150 The list goes on. We will do more where we can, but, in every one of these policy areas, the salient question here on this MPI is: what would the coalition have done? The answer is little or nothing. 16:17 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes A government's most important obligation is to keep its citizens safe. This MPI today concerns both the safety of Australians and the disposable income and wealth of Australians. I have two questions. Do Australians feel safer now than they did in May 2022? Do Australians feel poorer or better off than they did in May 2022? The No. 1 duty of the government and the Prime Minister of the day is to keep Australians safe and also make Australians feel that they are safe. That involves ensuring that proper processes are in place that mean that the government is properly ensuring that everybody that wants to come to our country, particularly those who are coming from war-torn areas, are subject to processes to ensure they have not been radicalised, for example, and are going to continue the great tradition of multiculturalism we have in this country. But we have seen in question time this week, on very sensible questions that have been put to the Prime Minister and to the immigration minister, is a failure to be able to ensure that those processes are in place—processes that have been in place under successive governments for many decades. Today in question time I asked the Prime Minister a question. I asked him about the government's policy. Is it now the Australian government's policy that sympathy for Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, is not grounds for visa refusal or cancellation? The Prime Minister was unable to answer that question and instead treated it with contempt and went off on some tangent about polling and some other ridiculous nonsense, again demonstrating that he could not convince anybody in this chamber that he was in a position to keep Australians safe. Let us turn to inflation. After more than two years, this government has completely failed Australians on the economy. As well as having an obligation to keep Australians safe, governments have an obligation to facilitate an economy where every Australian who wants to can get ahead and where Australians can earn and keep more of what they earn. But what we have seen over two years is $315 billion worth of spending. That's $30,000 for every single Australian household. That spending has directly caused the inflation rate to be where it is—the highest out of any of the G10 countries. Our inflation rate's higher and that has kept interest rates at a higher level for longer. It's not just me saying it; it is the Reserve Bank Governor, Michele Bullock, last week. While ever inflation remains high, interest rates remain high. What that means for people in my electorate—people in southern and south-western Sydney—is that things are a lot harder. They know that they have had nearly an eight per cent drop in their disposable income. Whether they're in Engadine, Ingleburn, Heathcote, Holsworthy, Glenfield, Menai, Moorebank, Bangor or Bundeena, they know that their mortgages and their rents have gone up by 15 per cent. Those who hold mortgages, and there are 22,000 of them in my electorate, have now paid more than $35,000 in interest payments over two years that they did not pay under the former government. That is directly the result of this government's overspending. This is causing Australians to have to make real choices about their spending. Do they enrol their children in summer sports this year? What after-school activities can they still afford to do? Can they go to the movies on the weekend? Can they go out to dinner? What are they going to do about Christmas this year? This is a government and a Prime Minister that has failed Australians with security and it's failed Australians with the economy. (Time expired) 16:22 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I'm partially glad that the opposition has brought on this MPI, because the safety of Australians and cost-of-living relief are actually priorities of the Labor government. Bizarrely, given they have brought on this MPI, those weren't real priorities of those opposite when they were in government. I'll explain this. In their 10 years of government, they did not keep Australians safe and they did not, in fact, support Australians with cost-of-living pressures. As usual, it's a Labor government—in this case the Albanese Labor government—that's had to come in and clean up the mess left by the coalition. We know as a government that cost-of-living is front of mind for Australians right now. We know that supply chain shocks, jumps in global energy prices and economic downturns are impacting billions of people across the world. In turn, this impacts Australians. Every country around the world is dealing with higher inflation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine drove up oil prices and the pandemic caused supply shortages. Inflation is still higher than we'd like, but it's less than half its peak and much lower than the 6.1 per cent we inherited from the coalition. Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, we're actually taking action to relieve the pressure on Aussies finding it hard to get by. The Albanese Labor government delivered a budget focused on cost-of-living support. The focus was to ease pressures on Australians while combating inflation at the same time. Here are some facts for those opposite who brought this MPI. We increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 25 per cent—that's $4.6 billion back into the pockets of renters, we delivered cheaper medicines, we waived $3 billion of student debt, we delivered a tax cut for every taxpayer, we expanded government funded paid parental leave, we provided a $300 energy bill relief rebate to every household and a $325 energy bill rebate to every small business in the country. We have invested, and will continue investing, $32 billion in housing in just two short years—probably the biggest investment ever, and certainly the biggest in over a decade—to build more houses. We've delivered three consecutive increases to the minimum wage since coming into office, and we've helped 2.6 million Australian workers. Everything we're doing is helping keep inflation at bay, and the ABS data shows that our cost-of-living relief took half a percentage point off inflation just this year. Our policies have had a direct and positive impact on all Australians, lowering inflation that was higher under the coalition and putting us on track for a larger-than-forecast surplus. Those on the other side should take a look at the budget they delivered when inflation was on the way up and had a '6' in front of it. They spent more to do less. Even the Nobel-Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said that it was 'unambiguous' that current inflation is not caused by excess government spending. Responsible economic management is about investing in our economy and investing in our people. But the opposition calls for huge cuts to spending. That's what they want: cuts to basic support payments to older Australians, or wage cuts for some of our lowest-paid workers in the care economy. That's just cruel. Australia's already experienced a decade of neglect and cuts under previous Liberal governments. Australia was left with falling real wages, cost of living pressures and a trillion dollars of debt. When it comes to our commitment to community safety and security, it is our primary priority. This includes our immigration practices. Our agencies undertake a series of assessments on every application to determine whether an applicant poses a threat to our community. We're not going to be lectured about community safety and security by those opposite—by the opposition leader, a man who released 102 convicted sex offenders and two men convicted of being accessories to murder into the community. We know that the director-general of ASIO has said that there is a direct correlation between violent rhetoric, inflammatory language and subsequent violent action. As elected representatives, as politicians and—I would dare to say—as political leaders, we have an obligation to be careful with our words, because that rhetoric does actually have an impact on communities. We need to ensure our language doesn't negatively impact our social cohesion and doesn't add to the fraying of our social cohesion. This government is providing genuine cost-of-living relief that doesn't drive up inflation. We're paying back a trillion dollars in Liberal debt with our surpluses, we're delivering an ambitious agenda to support Australians, and we're doing the work necessary to keep Australians safe. (Time expired) 16:27 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I thank the member for Wills for his contribution. One of the great successes of this country is the fact that we have, for many decades, successfully brought migrants to this country. But we've brought migrants to this country through a process. Those migrants have come from a variety of situations. We've had those that came, post World War II, through from Europe. More recently we've had those from various war-torn areas of the Middle East. Now we're seeing the request for those coming from Gaza, given what's going on in that territory following Hamas's barbaric attack on Israel on October 7. I don't think anyone in this place has an argument with the fact that we should look to support people in need, and I think, as a country, we've had a tremendous track record of doing that. We should be very proud of that track record. But, in the same vein, we should ensure that the people we are letting into this country come here through the right channels and through the right processes. We should make sure that we know who is coming to this country and their background, to ensure that they are not involved with terrorist organisations. I'll give the House a little bit of clarity as to why this is so important. There was a report today in the Jerusalem Post about somebody on the terrorist watchlist who was caught at the US-Mexico border for the very reasons we are talking about in this House— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Parliament, Climate Change 73 16:30 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane This building has historically not been a place where young people's voices are heard or listened to. We are seeing the results of this laid bare as housing becomes more unaffordable and the climate crisis threatens our future. I believe I'm the youngest person in this House and can confirm it is still not the most welcoming place. I've been heckled and told to quit and come back when I am older. People always assume I work for an MP or a senator because, surely, someone my age couldn't possibly be an elected representative. This is not a place where young people are supposed to be, and that's exactly why we need to be here. The lack of representation of youth voices in political arenas only exacerbates a sense of disconnection. When young people see so few leaders who reflect their experiences or advocate for issues they care about, of course they are less likely to feel motivated to engage. I recently ran a survey for young people in my electorate, and we saw over 1,000 responses from the community. The message from them could not have been clearer: the political system is broken, and the future feels bleak. Nine-seven per cent of respondents said they do not believe the government listens to young people. They see the game as rigged and home ownership as impossible, and some even noted they decided not to have children because they do not see a future for themselves, let alone a future generation. They want system change. They know what the rules of politics and the economy are, and they do not like them. Those rules have left our society so much worse off, and people feel more isolated than ever. They want thinking outside the box. They want the rules rewritten so that they have a chance at a good and dignified life. The results of this survey, like I said, couldn't have been clearer. Young people have grown up in an economic and political system that has completely let them down and done precisely nothing to make them feel like they owe those systems anything—and they don't. If our economic and political systems have not delivered for generations of young Australians, we need to start asking why. 'Because that's how it has always been,' is not a valid reason. If entire generations feel like this place is not working for them, it is this place that needs to change, not them. According to a new study commissioned by the University of New South Wales Australian Human Rights Institute, Australia's coal and gas exports cause more climate damage than those from any other country bar Russia. We've even overtaken the United States because coal is so emissions intensive. This flies in the face of a number of international commitments this government has made to transition away from fossil fuels. Let's be clear, this is part of a deliberate strategy to see our exports soar, which will account for billions of tons in new emissions, completely inconsistent with achieving net zero and totally out of touch with the science. The emissions from our exports are forecast to increase by a whopping 50 per cent by 2035. It's absolute lunacy to continue on this path when Australia is especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. So much talk about domestic emissions targets, but nothing about our exports. The resources minister recently announced the government would award nine new permits to exploit gas reserves in Australia, and yet only 19 per cent of gas fracked in Australia is actually used within our country. People are paying extortionate energy bills and for what? So that huge fossil fuel companies can send their profits from these climate damaging resources overseas. It's completely at odds with the Net Zero Roadmap and shows the Labor Party is not serious about addressing the climate crisis. Australia's fossil fuel exports in 2023 were likely to lead to 1.15 billion tons of CO2, almost three times the amount omitted in the country. It is shortsighted, it is unsustainable and it will lead to more disasters, more homes becoming uninsurable and higher bills. We export 91 per cent of our coal and about three-quarters of our gas, and this government has absolutely no plan for how to get us off of this train. We need an off-ramp and a plan for an economy beyond coal and gas. I can't believe I have to say this out loud in this place, but the safety of our planet and environment is more important than a sugar hit for fossil fuel companies. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games 74 16:34 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The love of sport runs deep in our nation's veins, from cricket and nippers in the summer months to soccer, football and AFL in the winter months to netball and basketball, which are enjoyed all year round. Australians have a fascination with athletic pursuits. So when the Olympics come around every four years it becomes a very special moment for our nation. It's a time when our entire nation rallies together to cheer on the incredible athletes who don the green and gold. The Olympic Games is more than just a competition. It is the largest stage where the world's best athletes come together to showcase their astonishing skills, passion and dedication. This year the 460 athletes who represented Australia in Paris have delivered some of the most memorable performances in Australian Olympics history. The Paris Olympics stands as Australia's most successful games to date, with our athletes securing an impressive 53 medals—18 gold, 19 silver and 16 bronze. This is an absolutely incredible achievement. However, what is equally impressive is that women went on to win 13 of Australia's 18 gold medals and 32 of the 53 medals overall across a range of individual and team sports. One of these incredible women, who has stolen the hearts of all Australians by becoming the most decorated Olympian, is Emma McKeon. Originally from Wollongong in my electorate of Cunningham, Emma is an exceptional athlete and has truly become an inspiration for generations to come. Her grace under pressure and her ability to deliver consistently on the world stage have made her a true icon of Australian sport. Emma made history in the pool when she secured gold with fellow teammates Mollie O'Callaghan, Shayna Jack and Meg Harris for the women's 4x100 metres freestyle relay. Not only did the girls win gold but they also set a new Olympic record. Another Cunningham gold medallist is Saya Sakakibara from Helensburgh. Saya's path to the 2024 Paris Olympics was not without its challenges. After a heartbreaking crash at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics which left her with a concussion and nearly led her to quit the sport, Saya pushed through with the encouragement of her brother, Kai, who is also a BMX rider, to train harder and go back to the sport she loves. She went out with a fierce fire to mount a comeback from the Tokyo Games and did what no other Australian BMX racer had ever done before—she won an Olympic gold medal. Her win was a deeply emotional moment, as she dedicated her win to her brother, who had suffered a life-altering injury in 2020. Saya and her brother, Kai, have been immortalised in a mural in their home town of Helensburgh by artist Sarah Rowan. Sarah put the final touches on the mural at 1.20 in the morning before heading home to watch Saya in the final. I got to visit this a couple of weeks ago up in Helensburgh—it is truly amazing. After watching Saya win gold, Sarah hightailed it back to her mural to paint the gold medal on it. It is absolutely amazing to see the community and Australia get behind such an amazing, incredible young woman. The Illawarra also watched on as Jessica Hull made history, winning silver in the women's 1,500-metre final. She is the first Australian to win an Olympic 1,500-metre medal since Herb Elliott in Rome in 1960. She also became the first Australian to win an Olympic medal in any track event since Sally Pearson at the London 2012 Games. Jessica's performance earned her a well-deserved place on the podium, and after winning the silver medal she hopes to inspire the next generation of athletic stars. Some more amazing Cunningham Olympians include the likes of Caitlin Foord, Mary Fowler and Michelle Heyman. All former Illawarra Stingrays, hey represented Australia in soccer with the Matildas. Flynn Ogilvie and Blake Govers are both former University of Wollongong Hockey Club players who represented Australia in hockey with the Kookaburras. Sarah Carli, a member of the Kembla Joggers athletics club, represented Australia in the 400-metre hurdles. All of our Australian Olympians are truly inspirational people, but one of the most inspiring aspects of our team's performance has been the diversity of talent and background. Our athletes come from all walks of life, representing every corner of our great nation. As we celebrate our athletes' success, we must remember that their achievements go beyond the medals and records. They've united a nation, giving us moments of collective joy and inspiration. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 75 16:39 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler We've seen a lot of reports in recent weeks about the CFMEU, but this is not an overnight revelation. It is not. In fact, in 2019 those opposite could have supported the changes we wanted to put in place, which would have made a difference. But finally the Labor Party has said, after taking $6 million plus from the CFMEU, they won't take any more donations. But they haven't said that they will stop taking paid labour from the CFMEU to work in polling booths, to work on prepoll, to hand out, to make phone calls, to campaign. Every single member of the Labor Party should make that same commitment, because what is the difference between a CFMEU member on a construction site using standover tactics, threatening tactics, intimidation, and those same people being paid to work on a polling booth? There is none. I bring this back to my local area. What will the Labor member for Bundaberg do? What will the Labor member for Maryborough do? Will they actually not take this paid labour? Will they not utilise what we know and have seen had been criminal activities from the CFMEU? There have been prosecutions galore. We know this. It is a fact. But they won't do that. Those candidates right across Queensland—those Labor candidates who should not be taking either donations or paid labour—will not, and here's why. The member for Maryborough said he was 'proud to be a union thug'. That's a direct quote. We know that the member for Bundaberg, who won by just nine votes at the last election, is the union's man in Bundaberg and in the state parliament. He was sent up from Brisbane to run in Bundaberg and has absolutely no ties with our community whatsoever. But what is it that this deal with the CFMEU does to Queensland taxpayers, to Australian taxpayers? If we look at some of the local projects that I have going on—well, that are supposed to be going on. The Bundaberg Hospital, which was committed as a level 5 university training hospital by the now member for Bundaberg, the Labor member, at the last election—they pushed a bit of scrub around and put up some temporary fences, and that moved nowhere—has now got furious activity just a few months out from the state election. It is incredible. But the real question is: what are the BPIC rules—the 'CFMEU tax', as it's better known in Queensland—doing to the cost of projects? The Bundaberg Hospital project is estimated to cost $1.2 billion and deliver just 121 beds. It's been reported that the BPIC policy—the CFMEU tax—drives up prices by 30 per cent. I tell you it's a lot more than 30 per cent. I've spoken to any number of industry participants. For one in particular, his company put in a bid, but the winning bid was three times the price. He wasn't able to bid, because he wasn't a CFMEU endorsed contractor; he had a deal with another union. Can you imagine how much more the taxpayer could get if this nonsense weren't in place? It would be a much better outcome. And look at the proposed Bundaberg flood levee, which I opposed for technical reasons. It is better known as the 'Jack Dempsey Promenade', as I'm sure you understand, Mr Speaker! It is currently at $175 million, and I've had local contractors ring to tell me that they have no chance of getting into this, because they're not a CFMEU endorsed contractor. In fact, the BPIC rules say that the unions get to recommend who can bid and who can be successful. How much more will this cost than it should? How much more will the taxpayer have to front because of these deals with the union by Queensland Labor and Labor governments? It is outrageous. Everyone understands that we need to build projects and we need to build infrastructure, but why should it cost three times more simply because the CFMEU is involved in the construction? Why is it that a stop-go individual, for example—a traffic controller—can get $250,000 a year on one of these sites, but a nurse, teacher or someone else who's not CFMEU aligned can't? Why should the taxpayer pay for this largesse? In my local area, they're across it. They know what is going on and they will not stand for it. I say again to those state Labor candidates: stop taking paid labour from the CFMEU. Every single Australian is entitled to go into a polling booth without harassment and without intimidation. If it's good enough for a construction site, it is absolutely good enough for Australian democracy. Early Childhood Education 76 16:44 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara One thing that the House may not know is that during university I spent a bit of time doing some relief work, basically going into kindergartens and supporting the early educators by giving them a lunch break and giving them a bit of a break from their busy schedules of looking after some of our littlest community members. One thing you learn very quickly when becoming a relief teacher in a kindergarten is how impressive and how hardworking our early educators are. I used to do a couple of hours every day, and I used to come out of the kindergarten feeling really exhausted and physically tired because of how much energy you need in order to entertain and engage and look after these wonderful little people. Our early educators do such a great job throughout the day of thinking about engaging activities, thinking about what each individual child needs and thinking about the sorts of things that are going to help make a young person prosper and grow. They are outstanding Australians, and they do such important work. It was only fitting that last week the minister, the Prime Minister and the entire government announced a 15 per cent increase in wages for our early educators. As someone who watched firsthand how important that job is and how good the people who do it are, I can say that that is money well spent. We couldn't pay them enough, frankly, to do that important work. Recently, I have spent time going around my electorate and visiting a couple of my early education centres. There are a couple I want to bring to the attention of the House. The first one is the St Kilda and Balaclava Kindergarten, where I was privileged to attend with the Victorian government minister for early education, the wonderful Lizzie Blandthorn, and my outstanding local member for Southern Metropolitan in the upper house, Ryan Batchelor, who is one of the hardest working members indeed. We visited this fantastic local kindergarten, which is a not-for-profit community based centre that has been serving our community in Macnamara for over 110 years. They are operated and governed by a community board of management, many of whom I had a chance to have a chat with. I was very pleased to go with the minister to confirm that the Victorian Labor government is giving them $750,000 to expand the early education centre to build a couple of new rooms up the back. It's one of those early education centres that, when you walk into it, you realise how special it actually is. It's this fantastic grounds, just behind Carlisle Street in my electorate. If you haven't been there, it has some of the best coffee in the country. It is a truly great place, and I was very pleased to be there with my state colleagues. Another centre I want to raise in this place is the centre in Windsor. Windsor is an area that used to be in Macnamara. It is potentially going to return to Macnamara, pending the Australian Electoral Commission's decision to redraw the boundaries. The Windsor Community Children's Centre is another one of those extraordinarily special places in my electorate. The backyard in Windsor Community Children's Centre is so incredible. It has amazing shading. It has this big, beautiful outdoor area. You just walk in there, and you see that the kids are engaged and happy. It is another one of those wonderful not-for-profit centres. It was established in 1917. Parents put so much into that centre, and some of the educators and some of the staff there have been there for literally decades. I met the wonderful cook there, who is doing such a good job. As you walk in there, the smells are very enticing. It's certainly better than most of the lunches we have here in Parliament House. These educators are doing such a fantastic job. Unfortunately, the thing that needs to be mentioned in this place is that the Windsor Community Children's Centre is potentially at risk. Swinburne university, who are the landholders of this particular site, are looking to sell the site. It is an extremely disappointing decision because that land was gifted to them. That land is zoned for educational purposes, and Swinburne is doing everything they can to rezone it and sell the land off, which really devalues what this special place actually is. This is a place that is for the community, this is a place that has been of the Windsor community, and this is a place that belongs to the people of Windsor. This community centre is one that has an 'exceeding' rating from ACECQA. It is an outstanding top-of-the-range centre. It does so much. I would urge Swinburne to reconsider this decision, to get behind and support the wonderful people of Windsor and to not just go for the cash grab but really value what this centre actually does. It is a place of learning, a place of education and a place that belongs in community hands. Charitable Organisations 76 16:49 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner We all know that Australia is in a cost-of-living crisis that is indiscriminately affecting households, small businesses, students and families. Basic needs have all gone up in price. Housing and rents are up 15 per cent. Electricity is up 22 per cent; gas is up 25 per cent. Unfortunately, this means that demand for not-for-profits has skyrocketed alongside rising inflation, costly overheads and reduced donations. While our local charities and community organisations are going above and beyond to provide support, it is sad to see that they are receiving little in return. The economic contribution of these charities is estimated to sit at $129 billion, a sector roughly equivalent in size to our retail sector. Furthermore, charities often provide better quality services than the government and for-profits due to client relationships that are built on trust. In May, the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living handed down its second interim report on solutions to address the cost-of-living pressures in Australia. The report included two key findings concerning volunteer organisations. Firstly, the cost-of-living crisis is causing an increase in the demand for services provided by the charitable and not-for-profit sector. Most major charities focus on the delivery of essential services, such as emergency response work, supporting people in crisis and social services. Charities catering to this growing need are doing so in an operating environment that is becoming more difficult by the day. The Wesley Mission Salvation Army and other charities have all shared similar experiences of unprecedented demand with OzHarvest recording a 73 per cent increase in the six months prior to March this year. The committee was alarmed to hear that individuals in full-time employment, as well as families with dual incomes, are now often those seeking support from charities. Secondly, the interim report found that charities have been unable to meet increasing demand due to increased overheads and less charitable giving. The added strain not only on patrons but also on volunteers is affecting the operation of charities. As one respondent said, 'I save petrol by stopping voluntary work.' This reduction of volunteerism is a sad state for our economy, but it is not due to any fault of the organisations or volunteers themselves. Volunteers Australia have also noted a sharp decline in formal volunteering. Sadly, they also contribute this to financial strain, finding that 16.6 per cent of people did not volunteer in the past 12 months due to financial reasons. In Bonner, we have a wide range of volunteer groups, catering for the diverse passions, needs and interests of our community. From the Wynnum Historical Society to the Red Frogs and beyond EV, we have many dedicated P&Cs, local churches, sporting clubs and environmentalists. The Wynnum Community Place is a charity in my electorate of Bonner that not only provides food and financial relief but also a connection, relationship and dignity for vulnerable locals. And other than funding secured in July 2021, the hub has operated completely unfunded. Despite this, they have returned $1.25 million in value. That's an incredible return on investment. In the last two years, Wynnum Community Place lost 46 per cent of its funding while experiencing a 126 per cent increase in need since December 2022. Unfortunately, without intervention, the community hub will be forced to close its doors on 30 September. That is why I have written to the federal Minister for Social Services to help Wynnum Community Place. I visited them last week to speak with Dave, who is part of the team at Wynnum Community Place. He told me that he'd seen people come in in the depths of despair and leave as different people. They now present relaxed and friendlier with their interactions with others in a place that they can call home. To see Wynnum Community Place close would be a sad day for our local community. I thank Dave, Mr Chad Gardiner and Mr Craig Moore for their representation on this urgent matter. It is undeniably an institution of incredible value, one which we must continue to support. Spence Electorate: Australia Post 77 16:54 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence The population of the township of Virginia in my electorate has grown significantly in recent years, yet none of these residents receive mail delivery, unlike those in other areas of Virginia's size. This exponential growth means that the Virginia Licensed Post Office, having provided PO boxes to a much smaller population through prior decades, has far exceeded its capacity. Hundreds of new residents can't receive their mail in their own town. So it only makes sense that, for at least half a decade, people in the Virginia community have called for Australia Post to implement the household delivery of mail, which brings me to Australia Post's policy to deliver on that expectation—a yes/no community-wide mail delivery poll in order to confirm there is genuine, active support for this notion. It is important to note that a survey conducted by my office, which saw 130 Virginia residents respond, found that 95 per cent of respondents would vote yes in such a poll. So you would think that a proper vote on the matter through Australia Post itself would clearly reflect community sentiment. But there's a catch, and it's in the rules of Australia Post's polling system. To quote their policy: If you fail to submit a response by the poll closing date and time, your vote is counted as a 'NO' vote This rule alone has managed to sidestep community expectations for accessible delivery services and has completely derailed the opportunity for Virginia to match its increase in population, and I'll demonstrate why. Out of 853 ballots to eligible houses, the 2024 mail delivery poll of Virginia showed an overall result of 412 voters saying yes to implementing mail delivery, with 441 saying no, a 48-52 split in the negative, leading to Australia Post deciding not to implement mail delivery. But, out of that overall number of ballots delivered to households, only 446 were returned and, of the returned ballots, just 33 disagreed with implementing mail delivery, compared to 412 returned indicating a 'yes' vote. That is 92 per cent of returned ballots in favour of a mail delivery. The other 407 ballots, counted as 'no' votes by Australia Post, weren't sent in. Only eight per cent of the 'no' vote actually indicated the resident didn't want mail delivery. While I acknowledge that a small proportion of Virginia residents I've spoken to said they didn't return their ballot as a more convenient way of voting no in the poll, many others informed me that their ballots either weren't or were lost and that they simply didn't know a poll was being conducted. These people were then counted as 'no' votes when they didn't actually express that sentiment. Many in this group have said they wanted to vote yes. So not only does the voting process heavily favour 'no' results but it assumes what communities want, instead of actually listening to them. Because of it, Australia Post have made a huge decision in Virginia, completely falling short of community expectations as a result of ballots with nothing on them. It is a certainty that, if this no-return policy didn't exist and the poll didn't have these unbelievable flaws, Virginia would have mail delivery, which is what Virginia wants. Imagine if a Commonwealth referendum automatically counted everyone who didn't vote as a yes or a no. This unimaginable system would be the equivalent of an Australia Post mail delivery poll. On a national level, people would think that's a joke and change it, so why not at a local level? This is a farcical result from an absolutely broken system, and Australia Post are choosing to stick with it. Despite having been told for over a decade to change it, by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, by members of parliament like me and by local communities across the country, Australia Post have chosen not to care. They think they know better, all the way up in the high-rises of Melbourne, than their customers in the rapidly growing communities of Australia. Australia Post's failure to listen has devastated mail services to the community of Virginia. They need to get their heads out of the sand and review how they implement mail delivery so that it reflects what communities need. So, Australia Post, get on your bikes—I know you have plenty—and deliver a system that actually works. Deliver a mail delivery poll that does what people want, and deliver for our communities. The people of Virginia are sick of asking. House adjourned at 16:59 NOTICES 78 NOTICES Presentation 78

Thursday, 15 August 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:40, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Moore Electorate: Joondalup Health Campus 80 09:40 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Joondalup Health Campus in my electorate is the largest healthcare facility in the northern suburbs of Perth, a region that will be growing at a rate of 10,000 new residents each and every year for the next 20 years. It comprises a public hospital, operated in public-private partnership with the WA state government until 2043, and a private hospital. A construction program of nearly $500 million is currently in progress to deliver additional beds and operating theatres and to expand services across public and private facilities. This includes $269.4 million in government funding for the public component and $190 million of private sector investment by Ramsay Health Care for the private hospital. With the necessary federal funding, Joondalup has the potential to emerge as a strategic accessible centre for health and medical services that meets the northern suburbs' specialist and high-acuity medical needs, as well as general and emergency care and allied health services, eliminating the need for residents to commute long distances into Perth's CBD for essential medical treatment. Ramsay Health Care seeks to build on the services it currently provides, with a significant focus on cardiology procedures, orthopaedics, general surgery, endoscopy and ophthalmology, while expanding ear, nose and throat, urology and vascular surgery. Ramsey also seeks to expand cancer care and associated surgeries at Joondalup Health Campus, including breast and colorectal surgery. I call on the federal government and health minister to commit to critical investment and support the development of a specialist and medical hub within Joondalup City Centre, with targeted speciality inpatient and outpatient clinical funding and increased high-acuity specialist services based at Joondalup Health Campus. The development of a Joondalup health and medical hub will improve the wellbeing of our growing community, bringing together preventive health care, primary health care, allied health care and hospital-level care, integrating those with teaching and research institutions at a location which is accessible to a population of more than 500,000 residents who live within a 20-minute drive of the Joondalup City Centre. Carter, Ms Sarah 80 09:43 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I rise today to pay tribute to Sarah Carter. Sarah Carter lived a full life, taking advantage of every opportunity to fight for causes that she believed in, both at the most local level and on the biggest international stages. She was a larger-than-life figure who touched the lives of so many with her energy, her enthusiasm and her intelligence. All whose lives she touched are so much the richer. Sarah was a true servant of the community. I met her in her role as councillor for Maribyrnong City Council and could immediately sense that she was not your run-of-the-mill public figure. She served with great distinction over such a long period of time—16 years as a councillor, an almost incomprehensibly long period of dedication, given how much is asked of councillors; 16 years of council meetings, dealing with controversial motions; 16 years of tough planning decisions; and 16 years of just throwing herself into every tricky and important local cause, community group and event. She was always there, and always with a beaming smile. Sarah was three times a mayor, the first time that feat had ever been accomplished by a woman. It led to her being named Maribyrnong's first female emeritus mayor. But, more than these statistics and accolades, Sarah's tenure was about her contribution as a relentlessly dedicated champion of the most important local causes. It was about how she evolved to become, in so many ways, the glue that held everything together. Whatever the issue, she would be the one who was able to recount its history, the nuances and all the possible options for resolving it. Whenever I was stumped on a complex issue, she was the first person that I'd think to call. Sarah played such a critical role at Save the Children. There couldn't have been a better person to be in charge of persuading busy MPs to travel to far-flung locations around the world, and that was demonstrated by how many MPs she managed to take with her, often into regions that took MPs well outside their comfort zones. Even though I'm sad to say that I was never able to attend one of these trips, without exception all of those who have told me about them recount that there couldn't have been a more dedicated and fun travelling companion. Sarah had responsibility for the Australian leadership initiative for Save the Children, which saw her lead delegations to the Pacific, the Middle East and South-East Asia. On one of the rare occasions that she wasn't present at a local event, you could imagine her in one of these regions introducing a gaggle of MPs to local communities, working hard to raise the profile of those most in need of assistance. I'm so sad that I won't be able to work with Sarah, to enjoy her infectious enthusiasm and to see her ongoing positive impact. I extend my condolences to Sarah's family and to her large and dedicated network of friends. Vale, Sarah Carter. AUKUS 81 09:46 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Only 30 minutes north of Canning lies what will be Australia's biggest national endeavour this century. It will be the home of AUKUS, HMAS Stirling, otherwise known as Submarine Rotational Force-West, or SRF-West. This is our first AUKUS milestone, where we will host US and UK nuclear powered submarines alongside HMAS Stirling from 2027. As I have said many times before, SRF-West is simply too important to fail. A few weeks ago I visited HMAS Stirling. While there's still a long road ahead before 2027, I feel confident that our Defence officials recognise the importance of this first step and are getting on with the job of getting us ready. The Australian Submarine Agency is uplifting the base. They are upgrading facilities, building new housing for personnel, securing the power supply and doing everything else that needs to be done to move HMAS Stirling from a conventional base to a nuclear base. Our people understand the significance of AUKUS within defence. The WA state government, concerningly, does not. Rockingham is in the middle of a housing and infrastructure crisis. We have a crisis of supply in housing, and we have an infrastructure deficit with our roads. This is leaving people without houses, and we are seeing massive congestion on our roads around the Rockingham precinct. In May locals expressed their concerns about traffic on Parkin Street. In March a US official expressed concerns about WA's readiness. The defence minister himself has signalled concerns. He said this month that there are a whole range of issues that have to be worked through and that the WA government would need to do more. Despite calls for action, WA Labor is absent when it comes to AUKUS. Yet, despite that, they are critical to its success. They are failing to acknowledge or resolve the challenges that we face, and that's why I last week called on Premier Roger Cook to appoint a full-time minister for AUKUS. There must be someone sitting at the state cabinet table driving the machinery of government to focus on the infrastructure projects that need to be delivered and on fixing congestion, building homes and coordinating all the stakeholders across the state that are needed to deliver AUKUS in a timely manner. In fact, Premier Cook should be following the example of South Australian Premier Malinauskas to drive AUKUS and build social licence with Western Australians. I think Malinauskas is a good case study for Premier Cook. Instead, WA Labor is falling behind and failing to grasp this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I've long voiced my concerns about WA Labor's preparedness for SRF-West. I've met with local councils and stakeholders, and they all tell me the same thing: there is no leadership from the WA state government. So, once again, I call upon Premier Roger Cook to appoint a full-time AUKUS minister within his state cabinet, fully empowered to drive all the machinery of government required to deliver AUKUS in a timely manner. Boothby Electorate: Roads 81 09:49 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby The famous City-to-Glenelg tram cuts through my electorate of Boothby, and within Boothby there are three major tram crossings on major roads. Each of these tram crossings is also near a major road intersection, on busy commuter routes into and out of the city. These intersections are a nightmare. The boom gates can be down up to 20 minutes an hour. The traffic stops and starts, and stops and starts, and stops and starts, between traffic lights, boom gates and then more traffic lights, all within 100 or so metres of each other. In rush hour, traffic can be backed up over two or three kilometres, and drivers queue across intersections and undertake really risky manoeuvres to try and get around the traffic queues. When I'm doorknocking in these areas, I find whole suburbs doing rat runs through the back streets to try and avoid these terrible intersections, pushing traffic onto small residential streets. But the commuter traffic from further south has no choice. The previous Liberal-National government promised to remove them at the 2016, 2018 and 2019 state and federal elections but did nothing. So, at the last state and federal elections, Labor committed to removing the Marion and Cross Road tram intersections. After lobbying by me and state members Jayne Stinson and Sarah Andrews, with support from a community petition, Minister Tom Koutsantonis included the Morphett Road tram intersection as a possibility in the tender in March 2023. So I was very pleased to have Minister Catherine King in town a couple of weeks ago for the announcement that the third tram intersection would indeed be included in the project. These plans also incorporate safer pathways for cyclists and pedestrians, who are currently also having to cross these major roads. The new designs incorporate additional open space for local community, with potential for tree plantings and recreational facilities, all of which are currently being consulted on with the local residents. I am pleased to advise that the minor prep works have already begun and the major works will commence later this year and into next year. There will be a six-month tram shutdown in the middle of 2025, and additional bus services will be provided to assist commuters who normally use the tram during this period. The removal of all three tram intersections, as well as the upgrade of the existing South Road tram overpass, will be completed by the end of 2025. Because most of the work—the building of the ramps for the overpass—will occur on either side of the roads, the impact on commuter traffic through these intersections will be minimised. I have talked in this place about the importance of the North-South Corridor to traffic in Boothby. However, when the works begin on this project, we know a lot of the traffic currently using South Road to commute will want to use these other roads for their journey. The removal of the three tram intersections will enable traffic from Boothby and Kingston, all of southern Adelaide, to flow more freely. It's a really great outcome for Boothby. Petrie Electorate: Roads 82 09:52 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on local infrastructure within the Petrie electorate. Over the past months, my commitment to, along with the people of Petrie, enhancing the quality of life for our community has translated into tangible improvements, particularly through the local councils. From the upgrades to our roads, we are witnessing a transformation that not only supports our growing population but also reflects my commitment, and the dedication of the people that I represent, to a vibrant, connected future. Roads are generally constructed by the councils or by the state government. There is a stark contrast with what's happening there at the moment. The councils—both the Brisbane City Council and the City of Moreton Bay—are getting on with building, whereas the state government is doing a very poor job. I'll touch on that quickly. In my electorate, the areas that were just recently upgraded include Klingner Road. With the support of the City of Moreton Bay, the intersection of Klingner Road and Boardman Road at Kippa-Ring was recently upgraded. There were a few problems, with the workers hitting a gas line, but it's now completely done. Through the federal Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, we were able to secure, for this much-needed upgrade, some $4.8 million from the previous federal coalition government. This project was delayed significantly, but it was eventually done. So I want to thank the City of Moreton Bay for improving that roundabout into a signalised intersection. For Kinsellas Road West at Mango Hill, funding was available through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program from the previous coalition government. We secured $250,000 to upgrade that, and construction is underway. For Flinders Parade at North Lakes, we secured $1.3 million. With the work of the City of Moreton Bay, we were able to upgrade Flinders Parade and Cook Court at North Lakes, which is a really busy intersection due to Costco and Bunnings being just down the road. In the Brisbane City Council area, Beams Road and Dorville Road works are now underway. Some years ago, we were able to secure $50 million in federal funding to give to council to get this done. It's a widening of roads. But the big issue is the Labor state government in Queensland. They're absolutely pathetic and they're doing a really poor job. I'll tell you why. For years, we've been waiting on the Beams Road overpass to be done, the Linkfield Road overpass to be done, and the Gateway Motorway to be upgraded between St John Fisher College and the Pine River—all of that did not start until very recently. Just 10 weeks before a state election they're finally getting the Beams Road overpass going. We had the minister, Bart Mellish, and Stirling Hinchliffe putting up billboards prior to 2020 saying construction will start in 2021. It's now 2024—three years late—and they've just started it. Not only that, we also have the Premier, who said nothing about the Dohles Rocks Road on and off ramps at Murrumba Downs and Griffin—nothing before 2020—but, 10 weeks out from a state election, he's finally on board, and that's just started. And 80 per cent of the funding for that came from the former federal coalition government. Wills Electorate: Constituents, Housing 82 09:55 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I want to share a story of one of my constituents, Rami, who reached out to my office for assistance. Rami sought help to bring his 80-year-old father, Kamel, out of Gaza through the Rafah Border Crossing. I'm pleased Kamel is now safe in Melbourne and reunited with his son, and for the very first time he's cherishing precious moments with his grandchildren who he had never met. During our meeting, Kamel was in good health and high spirits, and it was a profound moment to witness the joy of their reunion. I want to express my gratitude to the foreign minister, Penny Wong, and her office, for their invaluable support and assistance throughout that process. Kamel's journey's highlights the importance of our commitment to aiding those in need, regardless of borders or circumstances. It underscores the need for compassionate policies that prioritise human dignity and safety. I also recently held a roundtable with Minister Clare O'Neil to hear directly from young people in my electorate about their experiences with housing and renting. Their experiences range from living in poor and dangerous rental properties, to dealing with unethical agent practices and facing arduous and invasive application requirements. This roundtable actually reinforced the urgent need for housing reforms, and the Albanese Labor government is taking action on this. After a decade of neglect from the former coalition government, this government, the Labor government, has committed $32 billion in just two years to build new homes. That's real and tangible action that's making a difference—and it will continue to make a difference. Our priority is simple: it is to build more homes for more Australians. It's that simple. The government has an ambitious national target of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. The Housing Australia Future Fund will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes over the next five years. The Help to Buy Scheme and the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee are also crucial in making homeownership more accessible. I urge those opposite to support those bills and those policies. To support those facing rental stress, we've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 25 per cent, putting $4.6 billion back in the renters' pockets and introducing build-to-rent incentives to support a more stable and secure rental market. It's clear that the Albanese government is making significant investment into housing, but we recognise there's more to do. We need to do more. It is a crisis, and that's why we're prioritising housing, housing reform and affordable housing. We hope that those opposite—maybe not some of the minor parties who are playing politics with this—might see fit to actually support those policies in the national interest and for their own constituents. Our new housing minister, Clare O'Neil, is already on the job, working on various new reforms to help every Australian have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. I ask those opposite to support those reforms in good faith, because it will make a difference to Australians looking for housing, wanting affordable housing and wanting the dignity of having a roof over their head. Herbert Electorate: Infrastructure 83 09:58 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert City deals are meant to be a partnership between the federal, state and local governments to position Australia's population centres for the future. Yet, the Queensland state Labor government, along with its federal counterpart, have made it their full-time mission to screw the people of Townsville over at every opportunity. The former coalition government entered the Townsville City Deal in good faith. In 2019, we committed $200 million to the Haughton pipeline, stage 2. That money was eventually rejected by the Labor led state government and local government some 12 months later due to a lie over GST. Today this is one of the biggest disasters of public work in the history of North Queensland. With a cost increase of 133 per cent, to $420 million, as well as a completion blowout, it has not seen a single drop of water flow. Then we have Reef HQ, a project that was fully funded and ready to go—until the Labor government came to power, rescoped the project to a knockdown and rebuild, without any community consultation, and then failed to fund a replacement facility. The people of Townsville have now been waiting for over two years, with zero clarity on the future of Reef HQ. That is an entire generation of young people who have been failed by this miserable Albanese government. Because that is not enough screwing by these inept career politicians who call themselves leaders, the people of Townsville have also now waited three years for a business case to be delivered on the Townsville concert hall project, another project funded by the former coalition government. We know from a slip-up by Labor's Townsville MP, Scott Stewart, that this project is all but dead in the water—if his federal and South-East Queensland puppetmasters get their way. All three of these projects were funded, announced and ready to be delivered to the people of Townsville. Instead, the state and federal Labor governments have put their own cheap political thrills above practical, sensible outcomes. Incredibly, the deception worsens the longer this mess goes on. Since the community outcry following the Reef HQ debacle, the Albanese Labor government has been laying the foundations for a cynical ploy to fill the funding gap. The government is now asking the Townsville City Council whether it's still interested in the $100 million for the concert hall. Can you guess how much funding is needed by Labor to fund a rebuild of Reef HQ? $100 million. It's not one or the other; it's both projects that the people of Townsville deserve. The politicking is disgusting behaviour from people who are elected to do better. I call on them to be better. The future of Townsville depends on it. Energy 83 10:01 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Last week I had the honour of visiting three local businesses in my electorate of McEwen. I visited these businesses because they were recipients of the Australian government's energy efficiency grants for small and medium-sized enterprises, which provide direct support for small and medium-sized businesses to improve their energy efficiency, ease pressure on power bills and reduce emissions. First, I visited John Turner and his team at the Black Forest Motel in Macedon and heard how they will utilise the funds from their successful grant application. They plan to replace 14 inefficient room fridges and two communal fridges that have low energy ratings with newer and more efficient models. They will also install power card readers in every room, with the power being turned off when the card is removed. John believes these changes will see the business save approximately $5,000 to $7,000 a year on its power bills, as well as reducing emissions. The Black Forest Motel has long been a central hub for the community during times of crisis—fires, floods and storms. It's great to be able to support a business that does so much for our community. We then went down to the Jolly Miller Cafe in Gisborne; it's a favourite stop of ours. I remember taking former prime minister Bob Hawke there, and he was very impressed with their cheese and onion sandwiches. He said that they were good helpings. It was great to see that they received an energy efficiency grant as well. Cost-of-living pressures have a flow-on effect for local businesses in our community and their ability to adapt and save on overheads. I thank the head chef, Priyanka, and the store manager, Francis, who explained what the upgrades to well-used appliances will do to help the business become energy efficient and save on costs. It means that they will be able to continue the great work they've been doing for a long time. We also went down to Dreaming Goat Dairy in Monegeetta. Daniel and Sarah Ajzner have an amazing story. They run a 50-acre goat farm with a small-scale dairy in Monegeetta, where they produce some of the best curd that's ever been tasted. On my recent visit to congratulate them on their successful application, Daniel explained that the energy efficiency grant will make a huge difference to their food business. The funds will allow them to update their current energy-hungry, second-hand refrigeration units and purchase a new refrigerator trailer, which is important when transporting dairy goods. It was a pleasure to tour the farm, to see the many goats who were preparing for the next generation of goats to come and to see how the tree change dream will continue to flourish with the assistance of the Albanese government. I encourage more businesses to look at these grants as an opportunity to help save on one of the most expensive things in business—that is, energy—and a way to upgrade their facilities to build a better future. Longman Electorate: Schools 84 10:05 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Recently I attended a fundraising dinner for the school chaplain, Nancy Jones, at my old school, Dakabin State High. North Pine Baptist Church, at Kallangur, hosted the evening, and there were many past students and teachers present as well as the current principal, Pete Keen, and one of the deputy principals, Rae Ellis. Thank you to those who contributed to the night with their stories and by opening up about the struggles they faced at high school and the positive impact the school chaplain had in helping them through that difficult period. Longman is truly blessed to have wonderful chaplains throughout the majority of its 44 schools. These committed individuals provide a safe pair of ears for teenagers to confide in on matters or issues they may have difficulty talking to their teachers or parents about. Many also provide practical assistance, running initiatives such as brekkie club, which feeds kids that, for various reasons, may come to school hungry—not to mention the staff and parents they care for as well. These selfless individuals are probably the lowest-paid workers in the country and receive a small amount of government funding which funds around 1½ days per week. Many chaplains are at their schools for much more than this and rely on donations from generous private donors—which have unfortunately shrunk by 30 per cent since the tax deductibility of donations was removed two years ago when a new government was elected. Others choose to donate their time, and many have quit much higher-paying jobs to take up this calling. As I said on the night, although they cannot speak about their faith their actions will show the love of Christ far more than any words ever will. On behalf of myself and the lives you've touched, thank you. So many of our children and teenagers don't fit our current education system. Some have medical conditions, some are disengaged because of current or past abusive situations in their lives, and some are just not wired to learn through our current academic systems in mainstream schools. In Longman we have two schools in Caboolture to help deal with these disengaged students: Alta-1 and Horizons College. Both these schools target a different type of disengaged student, and both do an amazing job. Their problem is one of capacity to handle demand. These schools provide not only education for students, many of whom would otherwise be on a downward spiral; their higher teacher-to-student ratios mean these often neglected children are given attention. It is of great concern to me that these schools are having to refuse entry to our younger generation because they simply don't have the room. When I visit these schools and talk to the students, they tell me how much they are now enjoying school compared to when they were in a mainstream school that didn't suit them—which is music to my ears. To those students who are academic and suit the mainstream system, I say: good luck to you, and I hope you go on to great things. But surely we must ensure all our kids are given every opportunity to flourish and become the best version of themselves. Keep up the great work, Alta-1 and Horizons College. Ipswich Jets Leagues Club 85 10:08 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair On Saturday 3 August I was pleased, along with a large crowd, to attend the Ipswich Jets Leagues Club for the grand final breakfast for the Ipswich Jets netball team, which was playing the Gold Coast Titans at 6 pm the next night in the grand final of the Queensland Sapphire Series, which is the main Queensland state competition below the national super netball competition. The Jets have been in the competition for six years and have made the grand final in three of those six years. The Jets had played the Gold Coast Titans twice during the regular season and beaten them twice, including in First Nations Round, to secure the minor premiership; we had a lot of optimism there. I'm pleased to say that the next night I was there, along with what seemed like half of Ipswich, to cheer on the Jets netball team, and they defeated the Gold Coast Titans 59-50. I congratulate the whole organisation: CEO Richard Hughes; chair Steve 'Johnno' Johnson; and particularly head coach Paula Stuart and 'Captain Courageous' Steph O'Brien. Steph's outstanding midcourt work and her passing is legendary. She's a HPE teacher at Bremer State High School; they'll be rejoicing there! When I spoke to Paula and Steph after the game they both told me this had been 25 years in the making for Steph. I also congratulate Ipswich Jets player Elsa Sif Sandholt, who has just been selected in the Australian under-21 squad and is one of only two Queenslanders to make the team. With Elsa's great shooting, she scored 37 goals in the grand final and was the most valuable player. I want to congratulate also TAE Aerospace, particularly facility director Terry Portman, for the wonderful gesture he made at the grand final breakfast. Some beautifully crafted challenge coins were given to each of the players, signifying the comradeship and special, collective achievement of the whole team. The Netball Queensland CEO, Kate Davies, said of the Jets that the professionalism they bring to the competition is outstanding. Speaking at the grand final breakfast, she said that the Jets had raised the bar and that she was not surprised to see them in the grand final again. After losing the grand final by just one point last year, it was so pleasing to see the Jets win. The joy and elation that brought to my whole city of Ipswich was just tremendous. The Jets organisation, with their commitment to rugby league and netball, should be applauded. It's a fantastic organisation, and I want to thank them all. The comradeship between the rugby league players and netball players is there for all to see. I look forward to the dinner we'll have to celebrate the achievements of both the netball and the rugby league players very shortly. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MOTIONS 85 MOTIONS Budget 85 10:11 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It's a pleasure to rise today on the budget. It gives me the opportunity to point out how the budget is failing Australians, particularly regional and rural Australia and my great electorate of Wannon. When the first thing that you note in a budget is that there have been cuts to infrastructure, then you know it's not a budget for rural Australia. Sadly, you know it's not a budget for my electorate of Wannon. One of the key things I've always focused on in over 14 years as the member for Wannon, year after year, is delivering more money for our roads. We know the Victorian state government won't do its job when it comes to funding our roads, so I pushed relentlessly to make sure the Commonwealth government does its job to the best of its ability in giving the state government money to fix its roads. We've been able to make progress with the Princes Highway and the Western Highway. We've been able to make progress working through local government to fix roads. But there is still such a gigantic workload to be done, because the state government, for every dollar the Commonwealth puts in, sadly peels money away. We've seen that in their recent maintenance budget. They are cutting their maintenance budget at a time when the roads in my electorate need more maintaining, not less. Before the budget, I called on the Albanese Labor government to do its job to make sure it stepped in and said to the Victorian state government, 'We need you to deliver for roads in regional and rural Victoria and in western Victoria, and here is money to do it,' so at least the maintenance budget would be maintained. But what we've seen from this Labor government here in Canberra is exactly the same now as from the Labor government in Melbourne. They are quite prepared to fund big infrastructure projects in the capital city, but they will not fund road projects right across our rural areas and regions. This is having a devastating impact. One of the things we always did when we were in government was put additional funding into roads. For instance, we put $60 million into fixing the Princes Highway between Warrnambool and Port Fairy. The sad reality is that the state government hasn't been able to show that it got value for money from that $60 million. As a matter of fact, it's very hard to see what they did with it. Then there was $80 million for the rest of the Princes Highway, and once again it's very hard to see where we got true value for money from that spending. There was over $200 million for fixing the Warrnambool to Melbourne rail line. Once again, we were promised velocity trains as a result of that investment, yet the state government seem to have squandered that money as well. But we were able to deliver the funding. The real test of both the Albanese Labor government and the Allan government in Victoria is (a) for the Commonwealth government to restore the funding we were delivering and (b), when it comes to the Victorian state government, to make sure they're getting value for money out of what is being invested in our roads. I will continue to advocate day in, day out for that funding. We know the Commonwealth government can't build the roads and it can't maintain the roads. It has to do that through the Victorian state government because it's their roads that need fixing. But we can provide the funding and then shame them into doing something—and that is what I will continue to do. This budget also failed the people of Wannon because it hasn't addressed cost-of-living pressures. It's done nothing when it comes to addressing cost-of living pressures. I've done listening posts over the last five weeks in my electorate, and, for the first time ever, people have been coming to me with their power bills. And it's not just one or two; they're coming to me five, six and seven at a time to show me their power bills. It's individuals who are coming to show me their power bills, and, sadly, it's small businesses as well. Small businesses in many of the rural towns in my electorate, because of the increase in their power bills, are now working the first two, three or four days of any week for nothing. Power bills are eating so badly into the returns that they make that one constituent came to see me to say that he and his wife now can't employ any staff and are basically working just to keep the door of their small business open. That is something I have never seen before. They are lining up with their energy bills. If this government could do anything, it would be to immediately address cost-of-living pressures. But the sad reality is that it seems like the government is clueless when it comes to how to address cost-of-living pressures. It is no plan to deal with inflation. More and more, people know—and know quite clearly now—that the only way that the cost of living will be addressed, the only way that inflation can be brought under control, is through the economic management of a coalition government. There was also, sadly, nothing in the budget when it came to community infrastructure in my electorate of Wannon. On Saturday I had a great pleasure of going to Panmure for the opening of family-friendly, female-friendly new change rooms for the netballers, women cricketers and others. That building came about because of $500,000 from the coalition government, under our community infrastructure and roads program, that went to local government. We saw firsthand what that program has delivered. There are numerous other examples across my electorate of where that program has delivered. Yet what have we seen from the government? We've seen an announcement of a community infrastructure fund, yet not one project has been nominated to be a recipient of that fund. We are now over two years into this government, and not one project has been nominated for funding under its community infrastructure fund. In my electorate there are examples such as Port Fairy Football Netball Club and Skipton Football Netball Club, clubs with female participation, waiting for the government to make some sort of announcement on the funding of some sort of community infrastructure. Just north of Hamilton there is another example where the community is waiting to see whether this fund will be used. My hope is that the people of Cavendish, who have put so much time and effort into making sure that they have put a proposal in, will be recognised and funded under this program because the work required to go through the various stages is enormous for a small community club. I hope that this will be recognised by the government. There are many ways that this budget continues to fail the people of my electorate, but there are those three crucial ones. Let's hope that these three areas are recognised by the government in MYEFO or in the next budget. We need more funding for our roads, we need the cost of living addressed and we need money for community infrastructure projects. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 87 ADJOURNMENT Housing 87 10:21 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley The Labor government knows that Australians are having a tough time finding housing to buy and rent, and it's getting on with the job of building homes for Australia. The new financial year marks the next phase of our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan. This is huge. Homes for Australia will build more homes more quickly in more parts of the country, fulfilling an ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. Whilst the Liberals and the Greens team up to block more housing, the Labor government is trying to boost supply. In Dunkley, 59.5 per cent of household families are low-income families. Each week, I hear from my constituents that this is a big issue. As a new MP, there are people you meet that you remember and cannot forget. Tony from Frankston spoke to me about the reality. He and his wife are both working. They are renting in the local area, having moved from Mornington Peninsula due to rental increases. He mentioned that, despite both he and his wife working, he is likely to have to move, again, out of the area in the next 12 months. He is nervous about homelessness due to the increasing cost of rent and the lack of housing supply. I am also aware of locals forsaking food and selling household items because there are not enough funds to afford the rent. There are a number of incentives that the states and territories are undertaking to support the reforms to boost supply of housing. The government has committed $3 billion under the New Homes Bonus for states and territories to help meet this target. There are so many other important housing reforms on the go, such as the new $9.3 billion five-year National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness to combat homelessness, provide crisis support, and build and prepare social housing. This new agreement includes a doubling of Commonwealth funding for homelessness, to be matched by states and territories. Money from the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will start to spend. In its first five years, the fund will support 30,000 social and affordable rental homes. The $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator will be used to deliver 4,000 new social homes across Australia, and $5.5 billion is being invested in the Help to Buy scheme to help more Australians buy new homes. The Help to Buy scheme will support 40,000 Australian households to purchase a new or existing home with an equity contribution from the government. Then there is $2.7 billion to increase Commonwealth rent assistance. To support this, we're putting in $90.6 million to boost the number of construction workers, including 20,000 new fee-free TAFE places, and we're supporting apprentices through a $5,000 apprenticeship allowance so that they can complete their apprenticeship. We are also supporting employers of apprentices, with a $5,000 incentive. To work to address housing supply, this government has invested significant funding in the construction of new homes. The policies and funding are focused on increasing supply. The package is ensuring more Australians have a roof over their head and aren't sleeping rough, particularly women impacted by domestic and family violence, and young people. More Australians will have access to affordable housing. These initiatives by the Labor government are the most significant investment in housing. This package of $32 billion is more than the opposition delivered in nearly nine years of government. It is a substantial and outstanding investment in housing which is much needed in this country. Forestry Industry 87 10:26 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I recently visited the Bulga State Forest, located 80 kilometres to the west of Port Macquarie in New South Wales. It is a native forest that is due to be logged imminently. Whilst there with locals, I had the profound pleasure of seeing an endangered greater glider emerge from its den tree just after dusk. In fact, I personally saw a few greater gliders that night, in the space of a couple of hours. Seeing these beautiful creatures—our largest glider, and definitely the cutest—was a truly special experience, but such magic moments are increasingly rare. Greater glider numbers have declined 80 per cent in the last 20 years. In 2022 greater gliders were added to the endangered species list. The reason? Native forest logging, which is killing off critical habitat, and fiercer bushfires, fuelled by climate change. Last week Forestry Corporation of NSW, owned by the New South Wales government, closed Bulga State Forest to the public in preparation for logging of this amazing forest, where I saw these endangered species. There are likely to be fierce protests from the local community when the heavy machinery arrives and begins its destruction. Forestry Corporation of NSW will tell you that it takes steps to protect the greater gliders of the Bulga forest. It will talk about selective logging, but Forestry Corporation of NSW is not required to undertake systematic surveys of den trees to see where viable populations of greater gliders are hanging on. I am told they will look for den trees, but only from the road, and conduct just two passes looking for the gliders. Until recently, Forestry Corporation of NSW was undertaking surveys of nocturnal animals during the daytime. Funnily enough, they didn't see any. This is a travesty, and I can't understand why it is happening. Our federal environment minister has claimed that protections for greater gliders have increased because their status was upgraded from vulnerable to endangered in 2022, but this is not helping protect greater gliders on the ground in real life. New South Wales forestry corp operations take place under a regional forestry agreement. These regional forestry agreements are exempt from assessment under our national environment laws. Typically, the federal environment minister does not have a role to play in assessing whether logging by a state owned forestry company is taking place in a way that is harming endangered animals, but this is because, to date, the federal government has refused to remove the exemption of regional forestry agreements from scrutiny under our national environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Instead, it has left it to state agencies to police this rogue corporation, Forestry Corporation of NSW—and I use that term advisedly. In the last five years forestry corp has been charged with over a dozen unlawful actions, including seven criminal convictions. Last month, in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, it was fined $360,000 for removing 53 trees in a forest near Eden. These were refuges for native species after the 2020 bushfires. Justice Rachel Pepper accepted that forestry corp has 'a pattern of environmental offending, has not provided any compelling evidence of measures taken by it to prevent its reoffending, and does not accept the true extent of harm that it has caused by its offending'. Do not believe the spin from forestry corp. Look at its record. The federal environment minister should do the same. If we don't want more extinctions, we need to end native forest logging now and end the regional forestry agreement exemptions. It is inconceivable to me that the Bulga State Forest is about to be logged when there are obviously greater gliders, an endangered species, living throughout it. We are destroying native forests and habitat for critically endangered species for what? Woodchips and tomato stakes. Yes, our Aussie bush is being shipped overseas or sold at Bunnings, often for really low value products. Worse still, we are subsidising this destruction. Native forestry operations run at a loss and rely on top-ups from state budgets— (Time expired) Higgins Electorate, Albanese Government: Community Infrastructure Programs 88 10:31 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Glen Huntly Primary School is a welcoming school of around 270 students set across a footbridge that links its two sites. Glenn Huntly punches above its weight in its NAPLAN scores and strives to continually improve. The school motto is 'Learning today. Leading tomorrow', delivered by teachers who develop each student's curiosity and confidence. I experienced the smarts of these children at a recent question time with the year 6s, who are learning about democracy. The students asked engaging, thoughtful questions: about my journey—as a science based advocate for healthcare workers; the energy transition—it is well underway; the parties of government—they make prime ministers; jobs for the future—energy, defence, digital and care roles; and pathways—TAFE and university. I emphasised that, despite the bad press this place gets, it still gets things done—things like Medicare, paid parental leave and protections for workers, as well as pay rises for the most vulnerable. I encourage Glenn Huntly primary students to keep asking questions and to stay focused. Your participation keeps the power of the people with people. Someone who leaves a successful corporate career for community work does it out of genuine passion and care for their community. That someone is Minister Man Cheong, who I had the honour of meeting during my recent visit to Carnegie Church of Christ. Carnegie Church of Christ is an organisation providing a place of belonging for culturally diverse locals, including displaced Ukrainians who have fled the war, as well as Chinese Australians, and for people recovering from mental health issues. This small centre epitomises the true heart of Australia—a welcoming warm embrace of doers and givers. The renovated kitchen, manned by volunteers, turns out delicious cheese toasties and a cuppa—the ingredients for connection. In the church's free food pantry are life's necessities, sourced from local businesses like bakeries and Foodbank, a lifeline for many Australians. Meanwhile the Open Hands led Bible study sessions and access to life-cycle rituals touch upon Christian values, the same ones I was exposed to growing up. Whether you believe or not, the way the liturgy is delivered is inclusive of all. I am proud that my Stronger Communities grant funded the church's community garden. The life that Minister Man Cheong has carved out highlights for us that service to others, in whatever form or place that comes in, is edifying and nurtures that which is best in ourselves. Ardrie Park Floral Studio in Malvern East is a small business with an unwavering commitment to sustainability. This studio is an exemplar of eco-friendly practices in business. A member of the Sustainable Floristry Network, Ardrie Park Floral Studio founder Kirsten is dedicated to seasonal 'wild at art' floral arrangements sourced from local growers and collected in zero-emissions transport. A stand-out practice is the use of biodegradable and recyclable materials, from the wrapping paper and the twine to the vases—every component is thoughtfully selected to minimise waste. Keen eyes at the ANZAC Day ceremonies I attended would have noticed the wild beauty of her reeds, with blooms and foliage attached to a bundle of brush rather than plastic. As a former financier, Kirsten will appreciate the climate risk disclosure framework we are introducing, giving investors and companies the transparency they need to invest in new opportunities as part of the net zero transformation. Businesses like Ardrie Park Floral Studio that take their green credentials seriously show that business and community and environmental responsibility can and should go hand in hand. The Albanese government knows that communities know what they need and want. That's why we have announced $350 million for the Thriving Suburbs Program and $150 million for the Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program. Both programs are now open for applications. The Thriving Suburbs Program will release $500,000 to $15 million to councils and not-for-profits for capital works that enhance livability and social cohesion. Sporting pavilions, green spaces, inadequate change rooms, gyms, poor lighting, public libraries—here's your chance. Investments in our neighbourhoods make for stronger communities. The Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program is always open. Funding is always available. It's there to support the development of precincts like education, arts, business and so on. Australians finally have a government that has listened to the calls from our communities for locally driven, urban, suburban and periurban community infrastructure projects. Please check them out and apply. Pacific Airshow Gold Coast 89 10:36 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The Pacific Airshow is back on the Gold Coast this weekend, after an immensely successful sellout in its inaugural year last year. It's held over three days. The rain, I know, is going to stop and the sun will come out on Friday, Saturday and Sunday all day so that we can be treated to what is going to be the sky show of the year in this country. Organisers are expecting to top last year's 150,000 tickets sold. We're likely to see up to 300,000 spectators line the beaches all the way from Main Beach down to Miami and all the surf clubs in between will be packed out to see this event in the skies. The restaurants will be absolutely bursting at the seams, and it will be great to see. It's a family-friendly airshow that has cemented itself as a must attend. Of course, it's a unique annual event in South-East Queensland among residents and visitors alike and people will be coming from all over the world to the Pacific Airshow. We have wonderful veterans who are going to be there and some stunning acts in the sky. It will definitely feature the world's best civilian performers, some military aviators and emerging aviation technology doing things that will make you turn your head and perhaps hold your stomach a little bit. When you see the loop-the-loops, the corkscrews, the up-agains and the upside-downs that the planes do, it's quite incredible. To all those incredibly talented pilots whom we'll see in the sky over the next three days and their teams, thank you. The joy and entertainment you bring to hundreds of thousands of spectators is unmatched. We've been flown into a new era of spectacular global events, with the second Pacific Airshow, a sister event to the famous Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach in California, and its professional team from Code Four locked in for three more years of in-sky entertainment that Gold Coasters, Australians, Americans and the rest of the world will enjoy. A big congratulations to the Pacific Airshow team, Major Events Gold Coast, Experience Gold Coast and the Australian Defence Force for the incredible work that you've done in the lead-up to this event. Some of the biggest drawcards at this year's event are defence assets: the RAAF F-35A display; the USAF F-22 Raptors, which will be stunning; the US Navy's P-8 Poseidon; the RAAF Roulettes, which are the upside-down ones I was talking about; the RAAF 100 Squadron; and Nitro Circus—and that's just to name a few. Nothing compares to the joy and exhilaration that we are going to see this weekend on the Gold Coast. This event also provides certainty to businesses that really need a lifeline, because so many businesses on the Gold Coast are struggling at the moment. At last year's event I spoke with the operator of a food van that pulled up outside one of the surf clubs and took a huge amount of revenue just in a couple of days with coffees and sandwiches. That really did save them and kept them going in that post-COVID period when they were trying to come back. The surf clubs I've mentioned, all the way from North Burleigh surf club up the coast to Southport surf club, will all be absolutely stoked this weekend when the air show comes to town. I just want to say a few thankyous to some people who have been in this from the beginning. Right at the very beginning, in October 2020, Jan McCormick from Major Events Gold Coast came to my office on Chevron Island to discuss how we were going to deliver this air show. To bring the Australian Defence Force to the table with this is no mean feat, and I would like to thank the cabinet minister Stuart Robert for his contribution to bring the Pacific Airshow to the Gold Coast but also the Leader of the Opposition, who was the Minister for Defence at that time and signed off on the Pacific Airshow and those defence assets. And it would be remiss of me not to thank the current Minister for Defence for his continuing support for the air show. This means a lot to my community. It means a lot to businesses. It is so very, very important. It's the coalition that supports these events. The coalition supports free enterprise, reward for effort and small business. Just like Gold Coasters, the coalition backs all of the small businesses who will greatly benefit this weekend. To finish, I would just like to say how important the Pacific Airshow is with regard to our relationship with the United States, our closest ally and our good friend since the ANZUS Treaty in 1951. We have been so very close. Just last night I was in the Deputy President's courtyard, and we were meeting with congress men and women who are here in Canberra. We welcome those congress men and women who have taken the time to come to see our parliament, to visit our nation. I wish the US ambassador, Her Excellency Caroline Kennedy—who has gone home at the moment—all the best with the arrival of her new grandchild. I also thank the person acting in her role, Erika Olson, the Deputy Chief of Mission, for her contribution while Her Excellency Caroline Kennedy is not here. Cost of Living 90 10:42 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Right now, people right around the country, including in my electorate of Petrie, are facing a cost-of-living crisis under the Albanese Labor government. The last two years have seen significant increases in costs for everyone, regardless of wages. It's not just those people on low incomes who are doing it tough; people on middle incomes are also doing it tough, with 12 interest rate rises since the Albanese government was elected ensuring that the average household mortgage repayment has gone up by $25,000. Think about that for one moment. You might have been paying off a house under the former coalition government. Since the Labor government was elected, you are now paying $25,000 extra year in interest payments. This is for people who are trying to get ahead. Mortgages have gone through the roof. That's a lot of money to find every year—over $2,000 extra a month, $500 a week, just in interest payments. No wonder people are doing it tough. And the government comes into this place and the House of Representatives and claims that more women are in the workforce and there is record workforce participation. No wonder—they can't afford to pay their bills. They've all got to get back into the workforce. And the government claim that they're doing things for child care. Well, they need to, because both parents need to work, and they're going from part-time work to full-time work just to keep their heads above water. The government promised that life would be cheaper and the cost of living would be down under them. They promised that there'd be a $275 reduction in electricity prices for every household. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most household electricity prices have gone up by somewhere between $500 and $1,000. That's set for the long term. That ain't going back. I mean, when have you heard of prices going up and then actually coming down? This is the new standard that the people of Petrie and all Australians have to live with. The government get in here and claim they're doing something about the cost of living by giving a measly $300 one-off payment in the budget. So they put your electricity bill up by $1,000 a year—not just this year but the year after, the year after that and the year after that—and they're going to give you a measly 300 bucks as a once-off and act as though all your problems are solved. Please—give me a break. Then they claim they're doing something through tax cuts. The tax cuts have been eaten up faster by the higher inflation that's happening. They wouldn't have even done tax cuts if the former coalition government hadn't legislated them initially. In fact, most of the Labor members that were here in the previous term voted against the tax cuts. They're claiming, 'For the cost of living, we're giving $300 for electricity, we've done tax cuts, we're doing something for medical bills,' which probably would contribute to about 10 per cent of my electorate, so there's still 90 per cent that don't get that. So the cost of living has been a huge issue. We've also seen that real wages are at a 14-year low, with two quarters in a row of wage growth going backwards. The government claims that wages have gone up, which is true; wages have gone up, particularly in the private sector. We're seeing employees having to go to their bosses and say, 'Can I have a wage increase just to keep up with the cost of living?' The problem is that, when wages go up significantly as well, once again that fuels inflation, and that's passed on through the economy into goods and services that everyone in my electorate and around the country have to buy. So, under the Albanese government, it's a never-ending cycle of high inflation, wage growth not keeping up with inflation, and higher mortgages and interest rate payments. People are really struggling under this government. When you combine that with the Queensland Labor government that's been in for 10 years—and for probably 25 of the last 30—and with a lack of infrastructure despite hundreds and thousands of people moving to Queensland, Queenslanders are really doing it tough. But we have good news. We've got the opportunity in October to vote out the Miles Labor government and hopefully get some infrastructure built in a timely manner by a new LNP government if it's put into government. But in May next year we've got an opportunity to change this government. We've got an opportunity to not vote Labor—and to not vote for Greens either; that would make things even worse. The Greens have all sorts of crazy ideas, claiming they want to put on a rent freeze when 90 per cent of the housing in this country comes from the private sector. We can do better. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games, Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events 91 10:47 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro What a fantastic Olympics it has been in the last couple of weeks—our best ever—and the mighty Eden Monaro was front and centre, representing our nation on the world stage in Paris. I want to congratulate our very own Monique Suraci from Queanbeyan for her outstanding achievement in Paris. After narrowly missing selection for Tokyo in 2021 and the Commonwealth Games in 2022, she's achieved her lifelong dream of becoming an Olympian. And she's made history—the first Australian female boxer in the women's 50-kilo category. How cool is that! Her dedication and determination have been inspiring, and she is an absolute knockout. Another Eden Monaro superstar I would like to give a shout-out to is Sharni Smale from Batlow. She might be claimed by Sydney now, but she was Batlow born and bred, so she's one of ours. She's our longest serving rugby sevens player and a Rio 2016 gold medallist. She did us proud in Paris, with the team really taking it up to the other nations. Fourth place is nothing to shy away from. She's played such a huge role in the growth of the game, and she's said herself that she will continue to champion it from the sidelines as she retires from her international career. I also want to say massive congratulations to another Eden Monaro legend, Nikki Ayers from Dalmeny. She's off to Paris for the Paralympics to compete in the rowing events, a sport she took up after serious knee injuries and countless surgeries. Nikki said she jumped in the boat and fell out many times but just kept going—amazing resilience and determination. It's inspiring, and we'll all be cheering you on from home. You can't be what you can't see, which is why I want to thank each of these Olympians for being an outstanding role model to young people across Eden Monaro. I want to share with you a remarkable story that spans a century—a story of tradition, dedication and commitment to community. Peter 'Butcher' Lindbeck, a name synonymous with Queanbeyan, recently discovered that his beloved Lindbeck's Butchery is turning a hundred this year. Peter thought he had a few more years to go before hitting that mark, but a family reunion revealed the truth. The shop opened its doors in 1924, not 1928, as he had believed. It was started by Peter's uncles, Jim and Tom. The butcher shop has been a fixture in Queanbeyan for generations. Peter joined the family business after school in 1977, taking over from his father, Bill, in 1978. Through thick and thin, Peter and his wife, Ruth, have kept the doors open, navigating the challenges of running a small business with a keen sense of what the town needs, including green sausages every time the Raiders make the finals. For the past 46 years, Peter has not only provided top-quality meats but he has also become a cherished part of the community, a vital thread in the fabric of Queanbeyan. Thank you for your amazing service, and congratulations on this huge milestone. We know that reliable connectivity is not just a 'nice to have'; it's an absolute necessity in 2024. We need it to run small businesses across Eden-Monaro, we need it to study and work, we need it to keep people up to date during natural disasters and we need it to stay connected to family and friends. That's why it was fantastic to welcome the Regional Telecommunications Review to Braidwood and Cooma in the last couple of weeks. The review is considering what role emerging technologies can play in boosting coverage and reliability. It's also looking at how we can continue to be best prepared for natural disasters, something we've felt deeply across Eden-Monaro. It was an important opportunity for communities in and around Braidwood and Cooma to highlight their experiences and where we need to do more. I want to thank the community for their input in this process; it's input that will help inform how we deliver targeted investments to improve regional telecommunications. It will ensure we build on the positive work that we've achieved to date, including $5.4 million to support new mobile phone base stations at priority locations across Eden-Monaro. Last week I attended the launch of Tales From Two Cities, a book by Mark Butz. The book contains over 400 page of fascinating history of the Queanbeyan-Canberra relationship across two centuries. It highlights how our border relationship has evolved over time and is now stronger that ever. At the heart of that relationship, as captured by the many stories in that book, is sport. Sport is the centre of our tussles and our strengths. But, regardless of whether you live in Queanbeyan or Canberra, what we can all agree on is that the Green Machine is our team. Proceeds from the sale of the book will be split between two amazing charities doing fantastic work in our region: Treehouse in Queanbeyan and the Ricky Stuart Foundation, both of which have a huge impact in our community. Thank you to everyone involved in researching, writing, funding and printing this incredible piece of history, and a massive thank you to Ian McNamee for the idea that got it kicked off. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:52